Alternate Theories To The Resurrection – The Legend Theory

04.28.2012 by Greg Billingsley

This post is part of the the resurrection series (click to view the other posts in this series).

So far we've looked at the belief in, theology of, witnesses to, and alternate “dead end” theories for the resurrection. This post will tackle the most common argument against the resurrection of Jesus Christ that is heard today.

The Legend (Myth) Theory

The Legend (or Myth) Theory states that the biblical account of Jesus' resurrection is a legend that grew over time. It admits that Jesus was a historical figure and some things in the Bible really happened, but the more unbelievable events are embellishments or legendary accounts that were later additions replacing the actual truth. This theory encapsulates a wide swath of variation in belief, and some who believe the legend theory also hold to parts of the hallucination or conspiracy theories.

Surprisingly, this theory was first proposed by a theologian and not a historian. D. F. Strauss, a German theologian from the 19th century, is credited with originating the claim. Strauss, influenced by the post-Enlightenment rationalism that permeated his era, couldn't reconcile the prevailing ideas of his time with the miracles described in the Bible. This led to his denial of the Biblical version of Jesus' life and directed him in his search for the true “historical Jesus.” Out of this came his belief that the various miracles in the Bible were just myths created to convince people that Jesus was the Messiah.

Strauss' legend theory then grew in popularity parallel to the rise of naturalism and materialism, supported by the common link of the denial of anything supernatural. Since these theories are complimentary, the atheist has no problem adopting both, but also the deist, because of his belief that God doesn't intervene in the world's affairs, tends to accept them as well. Therefore, the proponents of the legend theory range from both ends of the religious spectrum – from the strict atheist to those that claim to be Christian (e.g., Strauss, Rudolf Bultmann, the Jesus Seminar).

As we walk through the arguments against the legend theory, one important thing to remember is this: legendary accounts are not deliberate lies. Legendary accounts occur because of many reasons (e.g., embellishment, hyperbole, limitations of oral history), but they are not outright lies. As soon as we get into a claim that a NT author is deliberately falsifying their testimony, then it is no longer the legend theory, it is the conspiracy theory and should be treated as such.

On to the arguments.

1) There was not enough time for a legend to develop. Ever since D. F. Strauss first proposed the legend theory, it has been met with intense criticism. One of the most significant critiques of the legend theory is that the time between the actual events and the subsequent documentation of those events is too short to allow any kind of substantial legend to be established. Julius Müller, a contemporary of Strauss, stated:

Most decidedly must a considerable interval of time be required for such a complete transformation of a whole history by popular tradition, when the series of legends are formed in the same territory where the heroes actually lived and wrought. Here one cannot imagine how such a series of legends could arise in an historical age, obtain universal respect, and supplant the historical recollection of the true character and connexion of their heroes' lives in the minds of the community, if eyewitnesses were still at hand, who could be questioned respecting the truth of the recorded marvels. Hence, legendary fiction, as it likes not the clear present time, but prefers the mysterious gloom of grey antiquity, is wont to seek a remoteness of age, along with that of space, and to remove its boldest and more rare and wonderful creations into a very remote and unknown land.

This critique has never been answered.

So, how long does it take for a significant legendary account to be established? Other ancient Greek and Roman writings, such as those of the Greek historian Herodotus, enable us to test the rate at which legend accumulates. In these cases, “even the span of two generations is too short to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical fact” (The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, William Lane Craig). This minimum timespan for the accrual of legendary accounts plants us, at the earliest, firmly in the mid-2nd century, well after the NT documents were written, yet, interestingly enough, exactly within the correct timeframe for the apocryphal gospels. In other words, if you want a legendary account then look no further than the apocryphal gospels.

2) The living eyewitnesses would have been a controlling factor preventing significant legendary development. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul mentions that over 500 people witnessed the resurrected Christ. In addition to that, there were eyewitnesses to his death, burial, and to the empty tomb. So, when the gospel accounts were formed, most of these eyewitnesses were still alive and could attest to their truthfulness. These people would have been a controlling factor in verifying what did and didn't happen, keeping in check any myths that might arise.

3) The disciples would have been an authoritative factor preventing significant legendary development. The book of Acts makes it clear that the disciples primary role was to be witnesses to the truth of the resurrection. Therefore, it was their mission to prevent any legendary addition to the account of what really happened. Given their authoritative office and role in the early Christian fellowship, their influence and purpose provides them the means and motive to guard the historical account. (Remember, any claim that the disciples intentionally misconstrued their account does not fall under the legend theory, but under the conspiracy theory.)

4) The stories themselves do not show signs of significant legendary development. In general, the NT accounts of the death, burial, and post-burial appearances show reserve and lack embellishment that comes with the mythologizing of a text. Instead, we see simple, straightforward factual statements.

The clearest example of this is the early Christian creed Paul includes in his first book to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:3-7), but we also see it in certain gospel accounts of the events, such as Mark's description of Jesus' burial (Mark 15:42-47). Yet when we look at the accounts in the apocryphal gospels, we see what a legendary account would look like. The so-called Gospel of Peter describes a resurrection where Jesus is being helped out of the tomb by two men whose heads are “reaching to heaven” and where “a cross [is] following them.” Another apocryphal writing, The Ascension of Isaiah, has Jesus coming out of the tomb sitting on the shoulders of the angels Michael and Gabriel. In these apocryphal stories, there are symbolic and theological slants that have tainted the accounts. Again we should take note that these apocryphal gospels were not (and could not have been) written until after all the apostles had died, and even then they were all rejected by the early church.

In addition, legendary development begins in the details and slowly morphs into bigger things over time. However, the resurrection of Jesus is not a mere detail, but is the core fact of the NT documents. Therefore, it is the least likely historical claim that would be susceptible to legendary development, especially within the necessary timeframe and locale.

5) The lack of a “non-legendary” account. We have at least seven accounts of the resurrection whose sources are eyewitnesses and all of them agree to the historicity of the event (the four gospels, Acts, Peter's letters, and Paul's letters). On the other hand, not one single account exists from anyone of that time that refutes the narrative of the NT documents.

Besides the lack of an extra-biblical refutation, some claim that the events described within the NT agree because the New Testament documents were harmonized by the early church. However, “variations in the resurrection narratives tend to support, rather than undermine, their authenticity” (In the Fullness of Time, Paul L. Maier). It demonstrates that each narrative wasn't copied from the others. Further, it shows that the early church resisted the temptation to edit out or harmonize the variations and that there wasn't a conspiratorially agreed upon “official” version.

6) It would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem if the tomb had not been empty and Jesus' post-burial appearances had not happened. If the resurrection were a myth, there is no possible chance that any of the sermons or events that happened in Jerusalem (as described in Acts and other NT letters) could have happened. Not only would the Jewish authorities have marched down to the tomb, opened it up, and crushed Christianity from the very beginning, but no one would have believed them anyway. They would have been lunatics. Yet Christianity's seed was planted and began growing right in Jerusalem. This means that the people of Jerusalem received the disciples' preaching and witness to the resurrection as truth.

7) The origin of Christianity hinges on the belief of the early disciples that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. If the resurrection of Jesus is a legendary fabrication, then how could Christianity have been established at all? The very fact that Christianity exists attests to the earliest followers of Christ believing in the resurrection and not that it was a later addition to the Christian faith. Why else would they live and die the way they did? Why else would anyone believe them? How else would it have spread so early and so quickly if their primary belief, the resurrection of Jesus, wasn't true?

Conclusion

With such strong arguments against the legend theory, why does anyone hold to it? I believe it is simply because there is no better alternative for the non-believer. Yet, as hard as it may be to believe, the simplest, most comprehensive, and most coherent theory that can account for all of the evidence is that Jesus was really resurrected from the dead. There is no other alternative.

So, for the non-believer, the naturalist, the materialist: is there even a chance of belief? Yes, most certainly! But it won't be from a simple acceptance of the supernatural. Accepting miracles doesn't necessitate the acceptance of the reason behind those miracles. It will be because of God-given faith that they will come to believe. A faith that reveals the reality of the supernatural. A faith that resides in the one who is the power behind the supernatural. A faith that is founded upon the historical events of the resurrection.

Some will say, perhaps, that [Ayosha's features] are quite compatible with both fanaticism and mysticism, but it seems to me that Alyosha was even more of a realist than the rest of us. Oh, of course, in the monastery he believed absolutely in miracles, but in my opinion miracles will never confound a realist. It is not miracles that bring a realist to faith. A true realist, if he is not a believer, will always find in himself the strength and ability not to believe in miracles as well, and if a miracle stands before him as an irrefutable fact, he will sooner doubt his own senses than admit the fact. And even if he does admit it, he will admit it as a fact of nature that was previously unknown to him. In the realist, faith is not born from miracles, but miracles from faith. Once the realist comes to believe, then, precisely because of his realism, he must also allow for miracles. The Apostle Thomas declared that he would not believe until he saw, and when he saw, he said: “My Lord and my God!” Was it the miracle that made him believe? Most likely not, but he believed first and foremost because he wished to believe, and maybe already fully believed in his secret heart even as he was saying: “I will not believe until I see.” - The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky

* There are many solid critiques of Strauss, Bultmann, the Jesus Seminar, and the legend theory. Here is a list of just a few contemporary works:

The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, William Lane Craig
Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland
Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, Paul Copan (Editor)
The Modern Search for the Real Jesus: An Introductory Survey of the Historical Roots of Gospels Criticism, Robert B. Strimple
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, Gary R. Habermas
Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, Craig A. Evans
Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig & Gerd Lüdemann, Paul Copan & Ronald K. Tacelli (Editors)
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, Michael R. Lincona
The Resurrection of the Son of God, N. T. Wright

This post is part of the the resurrection series (click to view the other posts in this series).

Topics: apologetics, resurrection

There are several points of criticism in response to your various points. Here I'll discuss just the first one.

Regarding your point #1, you wrote, "There was not enough time for a legend to develop."

This is simply not true. It doesn't matter whether we use the word "legend" or synonym, the fact of the matter is that today - I mean, right now, in the context of our modern society, with the ubiquitous presence of cameras and video taking and the like - we have stories that people make up about personal experiences (in other words, I'm not basing this point on people just straight up lying), stories regarding which details get added in that were simply not actually present, but which become part of the person's memory of the experience, and other people tell the stories who add more details (embellishment). This occurs both in relatively mundane situations, and in "heightened awareness" situations (that can be very emotionally charged).

In religious contexts, this happens routinely. All we have to do is look at religious testimonies - which have a "rich" tradition in religious communities - to observe this. A classic example of this (again, I'm talking about today, not the distant past) is with "miraculous healings." Ever heard of Benny Hinn? And he's just one charlatan of many. But I'm not talking about the charlatans. I'm talking about the strong religious believers surrounding some particular allegedly healed person, who tell the story, propagate the story, and they're doing it within the psychological framework of their eager-to-believe mindset. Details get added, disconfirming details get left out - and we get all manner of stories confirming the "power of God."

Meanwhile, in reality, whenever such stories are subjected to any kind of actually critical scrutiny, the stories just fall apart. This happens routinely. But are the involved religious believers fazed by the empirical falsification of such critical investigations? Not in the least. And the stories keep getting told and propagated from believer to believer who hear the stories, because they want to believe them.

You wrote, "This critique has never been answered."

That is simply not the case. In fact, it's been discussed a lot. Also, I'm not just talking about in religious contexts. In U.S. politics, did you ever hear - and see - any of the massive amount of "news" that was reported virtually every day for three years (and, yes, some are still "reporting" it to this day), that the reason Donald Trump won the election in 2016 was because he colluded with the Russian government to win the election? Almost every week there was some new development, some new revelation, about the story, that became part of the "news" cycle for the week. Seriously, you almost could not pick up a newspaper or tune in to a news program on television, without seeing an article about the latest piece of "news" backing up the Trump collusion story.

Three solid years of this "news" - a huge amount of "news" propagated through numerous venues, discussed by literally millions of people.

And it was all fake. All of it. (No, I'm not going to get into a political discussion, this is simply not the point. I don't care if you love Trump, hate Trump, are somewhere in between, or completely indifferent to Trump. For the record, I never liked Trump, and didn't vote for him.)

This is about the point that "There was not enough time for a legend to develop." That is not only simply not true, but it is manifestly not true.

It happens right now, today, and it can happen extremely quickly (virtually overnight). It does not take 'over two generations.' And to say that the idea that it takes too long for legends to develop is, to be frank, pretty absurd, since the fact of false stories (yes, not 100% fabrications, but based on a few specific elements of real experiences and real details with all kinds of fictional elements added through suppositions stacked on top of suppositions stacked on top of suppositions) developing and propagating occurs routinely and has been discussed a lot, not just in religious contexts but in other contexts as well.

Posted by Steve Greene on 2024-01-03 09:22:57

Great discussion on the evidence for the Resurrection between a Christian pastor and his former parishioner, turned non-believer:

-A Review of LCMS Pastor John Bombaro's Defense of the Resurrection-

(copy and paste this article title into your browser to find and read this fascinating review of the evidence for the Resurrection)

Posted by Gary on 2016-06-18 15:05:11

Hi Gary, thanks for your comment and it's good to hear from you again.

Am I correct that, in general, you are arguing against the historicity of Lazarus being raised from the dead because Paul and the authors of the synoptic gospels don't include that event in their writings?

If so, we can end this exchange quickly because that argument is considered an "argument from silence" which is typically considered a fallacious argument and, at best, can only be suggestive and not logically conclusive. Paul and the synoptic gospel authors did not intend to write about every single event in the life of Jesus. So, while the more important an event may be, the more we may expect it to be mentioned, it is still illogical for us to require any of them to include a given event, regardless of how important we deem that event to be.

However, if I have misconstrued your general argument, please restate it so I can understand it better.

Thanks!

Posted by Greg Billingsley on 2016-01-12 10:53:14

According to the Bible, how many Old Testament prophets raised people from the dead? Answer: Two. Elijah and Elisha.

That's it. And they only did it three times. So the act of raising someone from the dead would have been seen as a very, very big deal. It was not like healing someone of a disease or casting out demons. Lots of people, it seems, could do those miracles. Nope, raising someone from the dead was the big kahuna of all miracles!

In the Gospel of John chapter 11, we are told that Lazarus had been dead for four days. His body was decomposing to the point that he stunk. Lazarus death and burial were very public events. His tomb was a known location. Many Jews had come to mourn with Mary and Martha and some of them were wondering why the great miracle worker, Jesus, had not come and healed his friend Lazarus; essentially blaming Jesus for letting Lazarus die.

Let's step back and look at the facts asserted in this passage: Only two OT prophets had raised people from the dead, and these two prophets were considered probably the two greatest Jewish prophets of all time: Elijah and Elisha. If this story is true, the supernatural powers of Jesus were on par with the supernatural powers of the greatest Jewish prophets of all time! If this event really did occur, it should have shocked the Jewish people to their very core---a new Elijah was among them! This event must have been the most shocking event to have occurred in the lives of every living Jewish man and woman on the planet. The news of this event would have spread to every Jewish community across the globe.

And yet...Paul, a devout and highly educated Jew, says not one word about it. Not one. Not in his epistles; not in the Book of Acts. Think about that. What would be the most powerful sign to the Jews living in Asia Minor and Greece---the very people to whom Paul was preaching and attempting to convert---to support the claim that Jesus of Nazareth himself had been raised from the dead? Answer: The very public, very well documented raising from the dead of Lazarus of Bethany by Jesus!

But nope. No mention of this great miracle by Paul. (A review of Paul's epistles indicates that Paul seems to have known very little if anything about the historical Jesus. Read here.)

And there is one more very, very odd thing about the Raising-of-Lazarus-from-the-Dead Miracle: the author of the Gospel of John, the very last gospel to be written, is the only gospel author to mention this amazing miracle! The authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke say NOTHING about the miracle of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Nothing.

To continue reading:
http://www.lutherwasnotbornaga...

Posted by Gary on 2016-01-09 14:14:17

Hi Greg,

The problem with your argument is that not only do atheists/agnostics deny that there is sufficient evidence to believe the Christian resurrection claim but so do Jews and Muslims, both groups of people who believe in a monotheistic God and believe in supernatural claims.

Have you ever looked into the reasons why Jews, people who believe in Yahweh and that the Old Testament is the Word of God, do not believe the Christian claims? If you haven't I would encourage you to do so. It is very eye-opening.

What would it take for me to believe that Jesus rose from the dead in first century Palestine? Answer: Probably the same level of evidence for you, Greg, to believe that a religious prophet today can be truly dead and decomposing for three days, and then suddenly walk out of his grave to eat a broiled fish lunch with his former fishing buddies. I will bet that you would demand MUCH more evidence to believe a modern resurrection, than you do to accept a 2,000 year old resurrection claim.

What do you think that is so?

Posted by Gary on 2015-05-16 19:24:51

Hi Gary,

I apologize for the delayed response. I’ll get to some of your other questions/thoughts at a later time, but I think this is a fantastic question that I’ve spent some time thinking about because I want to be as fair as I possibly can in answering it.

I believe the answer to “…which is more probable…” lies in our presuppositions about the existence of God (at this point, it would be any “creator” God, and not necessarily the Christian God).

If I was an atheist/agnostic, then I believe that ANY potential forensic hole in the resurrection story of Christ would give me enough evidence and probability to say that the resurrection did not occur. Why? Because I already have the presupposition that resurrection is impossible, therefore any “non-miraculous” explanation would ALWAYS be more likely than a “miraculous” explanation, regardless of the supporting evidence. So, if I was an atheist, then I would answer your question, “Yes, in the realm of statistical probabilities, it is more probable that highly disciplined soldiers will make a mistake than that three day-dead people walk out of their tombs” because there is never the possibility that someone would be raised from the dead. It just doesn’t happen.

(I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this.)

However, if I was a person who believed in a God who created all things (again, it doesn’t necessarily have to be the Christian God), then my presuppositions don’t restrict my view of the world as just being materialistic/naturalistic/etc., but it is now transcendent. We still have our natural world and natural explanations for things, but, not only is there a bigger story going on behind those natural explanations, there is also the possibility of supernatural things. Therefore, the impossibility of a resurrection now becomes a possibility because it makes sense that a God who can create all things and give life to all things can also bring those things back to life once dead. So, in the specific case of Jesus, and now with resurrection on the table as a possibility, then I believe I can fairly answer that the evidence given is reliable enough to sway the probabilities in favor of resurrection.

So, my question for you is, if you humored me and put resurrection on the table as a possibility, however small it may be, what evidence would you have to have to prove that a resurrection (any hypothetical resurrection) actually occurred?

Posted by Greg Billingsley on 2015-05-15 15:49:58

When did Mary Magdalene learn of a resurrection?

Many Christian apologists state that it is impossible for the empty tomb to have been the result of a stolen body, even though the author of Matthew states that the guards were not posted until the second day, giving a least a short period of time that the tomb was not guarded. However, If the Stolen Body Hypothesis is impossible, why did Mary Magdalene believe that Jesus body had been stolen?

Posted by Gary on 2015-05-15 11:34:08

Greg,
How do you know that there were any post-resurrection appearances?

Because four first century books, written decades after the alleged event, written in far away lands, in a foreign language, by anonymous authors, three of which copied large sections, sometimes word for word, of the first author...say so??

Posted by Gary on 2015-05-06 11:22:36

What proof do you have that Jesus did ANY miracles?

Posted by Gary on 2015-05-05 22:53:08

Hi Zat,

Even the most highly trained, highly disciplined military men can screw up...big time. Ever hear of David Petraeus? Who would have ever thought that America's top general, and then top spy (CIA chief) would give away national secrets to his mistress???

What if she had been a spy for the Russians?

If you read the text of Matthew 27, the wording indicates that the guards were not at the tomb at the same time that Joseph of Arimethea rolled the stone in front of the door, but did NOT seal it shut. Even if it was just ten minutes, that is enough time for a group of men, whether grave robbers, disciples, or Jesus' family, to roll back the stone, steal the body, roll the stone back, and disappear into the dark.

Only by ASSUMING can you believe that the tomb of Jesus was guarded from the moment the body was placed inside to the moment the tomb was found open by the women on Sunday. And that is exactly my point: the Christian belief system is based entirely on SOFT evidence: assumptions, hearsay, and expert (Christian experts) opinion.

Imagine someone betting their entire life on the assumption that a highly trained, highly respected soldier and general like David Petraeus would never divulge state secrets.

He or she would have been very wrong, wouldn't they?

Posted by Gary on 2015-05-05 22:51:03

Hi, Gary!
Greg knows more about this than I do, I think, but I will say every time I've studied this with others, we've been reminded that this was a 'high profile' death and the guards, etc., were not going to let this guy get out of that cave.....of ALL people, the Jesus who said he was the Son of God and would rise in 3 days was the one they had to keep much closer watch over. This is why theologians I have read agree that the guards were even more careful at that tomb.
If we don't believe that Christ could leave the tomb, what's left? He was either God or He was not; a miracle like that's nothing compared to many others He did, with witnesses.... this is a totally moot conversation if someone doesn't believe that, right?

Posted by ZatgeeeZ on 2015-05-05 15:23:49

Hi Greg,

I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that IF there were guards sent to the tomb, that they did not check to make sure the body was still there.

But, my point is, there MAY have been a period of time that the tomb was left unguarded. And, although highly unlikely, the soldiers MAY have gotten sloppy and did not roll back the heavy stone to check for the body prior to sealing the stone. The text doesn't say they did or they didn't.

Wouldn't you agree that in the realm of statistical probabilities, it more probable that highly disciplined soldiers will make a mistake than that three day-dead people walk out of their tombs?

Posted by Gary on 2015-05-05 11:10:03

Hi Gary,

Thanks for your comment. In ancient near-East Jewish culture, days started at sundown (this is still observed by many Jews today). So, the “next day” began right after Jesus’ burial at dusk. With that said, we don’t know exactly when the guards were posted. It could have been just hours after the burial, sometime in the middle of the night, or sometime after the sun had come up.

Two things, though, that are more important than when the guard was posted. First, you’re assuming that the guards did not check the tomb before sealing and guarding it, however this would not be typical behavior. It would be far more typical behavior for them to check the tomb first to make sure 1) that they had the correct tomb, and 2) that Jesus’s body was still there. Especially since they are sealing it. When they seal it, they set a cord across the stone and affix it with clay to prove that the tomb and body have not been tampered with. They wouldn’t do this without verifying it themselves first.

Second, you still have to deal with the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. There are multiple appearances of Jesus to various disciples and Paul states that “he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time.” I won’t rehash what I wrote above in this blog post as well as the other posts in this series, but not only is there no evidence to the contrary, but there is additional supporting evidence that the resurrection actually happened, such as the complete change in attitude of the disciples, their ongoing work to establish the early church, and the eventual martyrdom of many of the closest disciples.

Thanks again for your comment and consideration of my arguments.

Greg

Posted by Greg Billingsley on 2015-05-04 09:54:26

The only author in the Bible who mentions anything about guards being at the tomb, Matthew, says that the guards were not posted until the next day after Jesus body had been placed in the tomb, and, even though Joseph of Arimethea had rolled a great stone in front of the tomb, he had not sealed it. So, the tomb of Jesus was left unguarded and unsealed the entire first night, in the darkness, and probably part of the next day. That would provide ample time and ample opportunity for someone to have moved or stolen the body.

So even if the biblical account of the “guards at the tomb” story is correct, the fact that there is a time period when the tomb was left unguarded, blows a hole in the Christian claim that a resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb and the disciples’ belief that Jesus had been resurrected. For instance, if grave robbers had taken the body, the Jews would say that the disciples took the body and the disciples would say that Jesus had fulfilled his prophecy and had risen from the dead.

Posted by Gary on 2015-05-02 00:26:49

ZatgeeeZ • 5 hours ago
I believe that one of the most inspiring and truth-affirming things about the Gospel is the fact that there are inconsistencies in the crucifixion story (and other things). Were I to be in charge of selling a religion based on writings of a lot of people, I'd have synthesized and arranged all accounts to the exact same story. That they all dovetail and/or push forward the story of His death and resurrection tells me that it's true. Also, there is a faith that comes from the HOly Spirit which cannot be denied only once you are a believer. I never understood that till the last five years ago but it's absolutely been proven to me in many ways, particularly since I've been involved in ten years of Bible Study with believers and not-so big-time believers, who have come to faith mostly from THE READING.....there's a 'magic' that happens which cannot be denied. But it can be denied by those who've not had this wonderful miracle.
My own pastor's bro-in-law was an agnostic until he was challenged to "read the thing if you're not sure!" He read it...and read it again...the whole Bible twice (or 3 times, I'm not sure)...and is a strong believer now. This is a scientist with renown academics and smarts.
The higher probability is that Jesus is Divine.\
Thanks for picking up the conversation, Gary!

Posted by ZatgeeeZ on 2015-03-22 18:10:14

Hi Gary,

Thank you for your thought-provoking comment. Your alternate story is certainly an attractive and plausible narrative for certain worldviews, however, I must press you a bit and ask, what proof do you have for it? What ancient documentation can support your hypothesis? What evidence can you show for such a narrative?

These questions push you and I to investigate something a bit deeper, which is "what is our standard for truth?" Is it my own intuition, beliefs (presuppositions), and "gut" feeling that determines which story is more probable to be true? Or, is it established from outside sources, things external to ourselves that can corroborate the narrative?

Thanks again for the conversation.

Greg

Posted by Greg Billingsley on 2015-03-22 17:57:02

I believe that one of the most inspiring and truth-affirming things about the Gospel is the fact that there are inconsistencies in the crucifixion story (and other things). Were I to be in charge of selling a religion based on writings of a lot of people, I'd have synthesized and arranged all accounts to the exact same story. That they all dovetail and/or push forward the story of His death and resurrection tells me that it's true. Also, there is a faith that comes from the HOly Spirit which cannot be denied only once you are a believer. I never understood that till the last five years ago but it's absolutely been proven to me in many ways, particularly since I've been involved in ten years of Bible Study with believers and not-so big-time believers, who have come to faith mostly from THE READING.....there's a 'magic' that happens which cannot be denied. But it can be denied by those who've not had this wonderful miracle.
My own pastor's bro-in-law was an agnostic until he was challenged to "read the thing if you're not sure!" He read it...and read it again...the whole Bible twice (or 3 times, I'm not sure)...and is a strong believer now. This is a scientist with renown academics and smarts.
The higher probability is that Jesus is Divine.\
Thanks for picking up the conversation, Gary!

Posted by ZatgeeeZ on 2015-03-22 13:25:13

Which of these two stories has a higher probability of having occurred:

Jesus of Nazareth is crucified in Jerusalem in circa 30 AD. As he draws his final breath, the entire earth goes dark for three hours, a violent earthquake shakes dead people awake in their graves, and rips the Temple veil down the middle. Jesus' body is taken down off the cross and placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea, a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish governing body which the previous night had voted unanimously to execute Jesus. The tomb is sealed with a large stone and Roman guards placed in front of it. Three days later, a second great earthquake shakes Jerusalem, causing the dead who had been shaken awake in the first earthquake to now come out of their tombs to roam the streets of Jerusalem and reconnect with old acquaintances; an angel (or angels) comes and rolls away the great stone in front of the tomb, causing the soldiers to faint, and testifies to one, several, or many women that Jesus' tomb is empty; that he had risen from the dead. Jesus later appears to the Eleven, and eight days (or forty days) later, ascends into heaven from a mountain in Bethany (or Galilee, or from the Upper Room in Jerusalem). The resurrection appearances of Jesus so emboldened the previously easily-frightened, doubting disciples that they now boldly preach the gospel of Jesus in the temple, Judea, and the world, dying martyrs deaths, refusing to recant their eyewitness testimony that they had seen the resurrected, walking/talking body of Jesus. These same disciples soon write the Gospels and several epistles which would soon become the New Testament of the Bible. The Gospel of Jesus spreads like wildfire, furiously persecuted by both the Jews and Romans, to become the dominant faith of the Western World for two thousand years.

Or, is this what happened:

Jesus of Nazareth is crucified. He dies. His body is left on the cross for days, as was the Roman custom, to warn any other "King of the Jews" pretender to think twice about stirring up trouble. After a few days have passed and the birds, dogs (Roman crosses were low to the ground), and other carrion have ravaged the body, the remains are taken down at night and tossed into an unmarked common grave---a hole in the ground--- with the bodies of other criminals executed that week. The location of this common grave is known only to a few soldiers, as the Romans do not want to give the "King of the Jews" a proper burial nor do they want a known grave to become a national shrine where Jews can later come to pay homage to their "King", possible inciting more trouble. Jesus disciples who were already in hiding, go home to Galilee to take up their prior professions---fishing and collecting taxes. The small band is devastated. Their beloved leader is dead; their hopes of reigning over the New Kingdom on twelve thrones with Jesus are dashed to pieces; there will be no overthrow of the hated Romans after all. All hope seems lost. Then...months or a few years after Jesus' death...a couple of women disciples see a man in the distance, at sunset, and in the silhouette of the fading sun...he looks like Jesus. Is it Jesus? He turns to them, waves with his hand, and then disappears behind a hill. "It was Jesus!" they exclaim. They run and tell the disciples. Soon other disciples are "seeing" Jesus. "He is risen, just as he said he would!" The disciples are ecstatic! They WILL reign in the New Kingdom after all! They begin to preach the Gospel of Jesus, telling everyone how he has risen from the dead, as he had promised.

...and forty years later, after Jerusalem has been destroyed and most of the disciples are dead, a Greek speaking Christian in Rome writes down the story of Jesus. However, the version of the oral story that this man hears circulating in Rome at the time tells of an empty tomb, the tomb of a member of the Sanhedrin...so "Mark" writes down the story. A decade or so later, "Matthew" in another far away location and "Luke" in another, write down the story of Jesus. They borrow heavily from "Mark's" story, from another common source (Q), and from other sources that they do not seem to have shared. For instance, "Matthew's" story contains incredible supernatural tales, such as an earthquake occurring when Jesus died, causing dead people to come back to life...but they don't come out of their graves until three days later when Jesus walks out of his grave! One wonders what they were doing in their tombs for three days!

And two thousand years later, every Christian on earth believes that the stories written by "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" are the historically accurate accounts of the life, death, and miraculous resurrection of Jesus, when all they are are legendary stories. No one lied. No one made anything up. It's a legend. Now, dear Christian, how many supernatural events such as dead people coming out of their graves to walk around town chatting with friends and family have you seen in your life? Not many, have you? And how many times have you seen a simple story about a missing person or someone's mysterious death, evolve within days, into the wildest tale, with all kinds of bizarre details and claims?

So, honestly, friend: Which of the above two stories about Jesus is more probable to be true?

Posted by Gary on 2015-03-22 11:01:57

Greg,
I stumbled upon your site this afternoon and remembered that we had exchanged some communiques. I found your last post to be most intriguing.
Some years ago Ray Bradbury, the prolific Science Fiction author who recently died, talked about the encounter he had with a magician who first introduced him to the notion of "live forever." He said it was the single most influential idea he had ever entertained.
Most religions have found a way of dealing with death and dying and the response of most is "live forever." Through belief, dogma, and doctrine the world's religions have found a way or explanation for obtaining this great desire that all men seem to share. Our response to death has understandably been "live forever." To offer less would make a prospective belief system seem too ordinary and unattractive. To offer less would be to offer that which would be unacceptable to our hopes and desires for the future which ultimately looms as dark and unknown. That Christianity should offer the answer "live forever" should come as no surprise.
Having said that I think it only reasonable to suggest that If Christianity seeks to support its truthfullness within the context of History that it be done with a committment to consistency both within the claims it makes as "facts" and to a methodology that demands it avoid an eisegesis that allows for a distortion of things that aren't "facts" at all.
Finally, when you say that you have " a personal God worldview" it seems reasonable to ask where this worldview comes from? Did you come to this worldview independently from the Bible? It's an important question for a number of reasons. Not the least of these reasons is the suggestion that Life itself and the experience of Life and what happens seems to argue against such a worldview. If all you had to go was the experience of Life could you arrive at this worldview? It is, I think, a legitimate question. It's quite a leap, or so it seems, to exchange experience and doubt for belief and dogma when the evidence for the former seems to outweigh the latter. This leads us to the claims of Christianity and the resurrection of Jesus and the ultimate dilemma. Is something simply more proveable from everything at our disposal or is it actually true? Determing it to be simply more proveable (the Habermas approach) does not, unfortunately, establish it as actually true. Enter Faith and why would anyone not want to "live forever?" You do, however, have to follow certain rules, guidelines, and dogma. And in some ways this is the Great Commission of all religions, to exercise control over the lives of their followers.
Anyway, I, too, have enjoyed the communication.
Thom

Posted by thom waters on 2012-08-14 12:23:42

Hi Thom,

I think my frustration with this method of communication has kept me from spending very much time on our conversation, which has led to it's end, and for that I am sorry as well.

Two things were discouraging to me. First, the scattered arguments (of which I am guilty). Our conversation had such a wide and varying range that it was difficult for me to give appropriate attention to any one line of thought. I much more prefer tackling one subject/argument at a time. As my wife would tell you, I can't multitask.

The second issue is that it is too easy to misunderstand one another or miss the main point through quick blog comment responses, and my responses (just like my posts) aren't going to have the precision for which many will look. I certainly missed some of your main points and I believe you may have missed some of mine. The "gospel accounts" reference you bring up is a great example. Even if I granted you the late date of the Gospel of John and we therefore excluded it from my argument, the main point of my argument still stands. In fact, in support of the argument we could add, at the very least, Paul's letters and their references to the gospel. Removing John from the specific argument I was making doesn't affect the core of that argument, which you didn't address.

If people come here to get infinitely precise arguments, then unfortunately they will be disappointed. I certainly cannot provide that. Of course, that's not to say that I can be lazy or purposefully unclear in my posts. Far from it; I want to be as clear and exact as I can. But the level of exactness that some expect from a blog post isn't realistic.

Another example of my struggle with this method of communication is my question about your presuppositions. My intent wasn't to ask whether or not you believed in God, but whether or not you believe that man is independent and authoritative in his search for knowledge. In other words, is the God you believe in a personal God or an impersonal God? Is it up to God to determine how we know him and what we know about him, or is it up to us to do our own investigation in whatever way we please? Is it God's good pleasure to clearly reveal himself to us, or is it up to us to determine the attributes of an impersonal God? Can we trust the Bible as God's self-authenticating Word because he is a personal God, or is it up to us to find the bits and pieces that we think speak truth about an impersonal God?

Do you see how the personal vs. impersonal presupposition affects how we approach the Bible (and everything else)? Because I have a personal God worldview, it leads me to the understanding that it is his good pleasure to reveal himself clearly and without error to his people. I can approach historical criticism from a personal viewpoint that begins with the truth of his Word (instead of skepticism) and I can also believe in an atoning resurrection because it is a rational product allowed by my personal God worldview.

However, if I believed that God was impersonal (or didn't believe in God at all), then God wouldn't personally reveal himself and the Bible would simply be a collection of books from human authors and, subsequently, I would treat them like any other books. In addition, the impersonal human understanding of our physical world would disallow any miracle or resurrection, and I would approach the Bible as false until proven true (which would never be proven to me because my presuppositions would view anything supernatural as irrational).

With all that said, it is what it is. I will continue to post to my blog, and I will keep working through the imperfections of this method of communication. Hopefully, as time passes and as I work to improve, I will continue to learn how to communicate better.

My hope is that we've challenged and learned from each other, and that we've learned more about God in the process. Thanks for the conversation, Thom.

Posted by Greg Billingsley on 2012-08-04 19:43:00

Greg,

It appears that our conversation has come to an end. Sorry for that.

One final word pertaining to your article, which prompted my initial contact.

Everything that we write whether pro or con the Christian claim concerning the Resurrection of Jesus should be held to reasonable scrutiny by those on the other side. When you write things like, " . . . when the gospel accounts were formed, most of these eyewitnesses were still alive and could attest to their truthfulness," I believe it reasonable to hold your feet to the fire.

I think it fair to suggest that this statement is somewhat misleading and not completely accurate especially as it pertains to the Gospel of John. Given the most accepted dating for this work, it seems particularly unlikely that many, if any, so-called "eyewitnesses" were still living at the time. And, yet, it is most provoking to note how many of the stories and accounts in this work are talked about by Christians as being historically accurate and reliable. From the spear thrust into the side of Jesus to the Doubting Thomas story Christians and apologists treat this gospel as if it were written within a short time after these so-called events and could be independently verified by a multitude of "eyewitnesses". We both know that not to be the case. Still apologists persist on making historical claims with regard to this gospel and the stories that only it recounts.

I won't here continue with the full litany of things in your article that I would take exception with. That, among other things, would be to assume your interest, an assumption I am not willing to make.

Anyway, best of everything. I think the admonition to love our neighbor as ourself suggests, at the very least, that we hope and wish for our neighbor the same things that we hope for ourselves.

Thom

Posted by Cardedaway on 2012-07-06 12:52:04

Greg,

Interesting response.

You seem to think that my skeptical approach towards those things that seem to violate the natural world as we know it, carries over to all matters and disciplines. To a degree it does, I suppose, but at the same time when it does my skepticism can either be proven to be well founded or poorly considered. Since the Resurrection is presented as occurring historically within space and time we can consider it within evidentialist terms. This appears to be something that you do quite comfortably although you do so to affirm the event, I suppose, rather than to confirm it. This would make sense from a presuppositional starting point. However, the mere exercise of engaging in an evidentialist inquiry into the event demands, it would seem to me, the legitimate probing of all evidence and facts at our disposal concerning the claim.

There is a somewhat prejudicial aspect to this inquiry when conducted by apologists and other defenders of the Faith. By that I mean there is an attempt to consider only those facts and data that would seem to support the claim, while intentionally or not ignoring those specific historical facts that might cause one to reasonably conclude that the Resurrection of Jesus most likely did not happen as believed.

The investigation necessitates that we use at our disposal those primary documents upon which most of our information is to be taken. This, of course, would be the New Testament documents. It becomes a legitimate question to ask which parts of these documents are to be considered historically accurate and reliable, and which are not. For example, no less an authority than William Lane Craig has stated that most well regarded NT scholars no longer accept the guard story in Matthew as reliable. Once you begin to make admissions of this sort it seems that you must regard all of these documents in a new light.

Without belaboring the point, looking back on your last reply, it is not really knowledge that you seek in this theological realm, but rather belief. I could even grant you the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead and that would still not prove the proposition that his death was a sacrificial atonement for Sin and that within that death we could find God's forgiveness. Again, belief is what you ultimately seek, not knowledge. If that were your end you might find yourself in the skeptic's chair. And, to a degree, you are absolutely right to suggest that in some matters it is a never ending quest, unattainable perhaps because a greater value is placed on actual knowledge than belief. It is an interesting choice to trade doubt and experience for faith and dogma.

To end this quickly, it seems that every believer until Acts came to a belief in the Resurrection through a post-mortem appearance of Jesus or through what they thought was such an appearance. If we are free to accept this as a standard of evidence for "belief", then I would only ask for the same evidence. I would not regard this as unreasonable.

By the way, since you asked, I can easily agree with your presuppositional statement that God is.

Thom

Posted by thom waters on 2012-06-07 16:19:26

Hi Thom,

I appreciate the time and effort in your response. You and I would probably agree in general on the existence and amount of historical evidence. We would also, at the very least, generally agree on what the first Christians believed, regardless of whether or not their belief was accurate. However, where we disagree is on the evaluation and interpretation of that evidence. I would propose that this difference lies in our presuppositions, especially with regard to epistemology.

It is my epistemological presupposition that God exists and that all knowledge comes from him. In other words, God is the source of all knowledge and our knowledge is dependent upon him. I'm guessing, and please correct me if I am wrong, that your epistemological presupposition is that man is independent and autonomous in his knowledge, and, with that, humanity is the ultimate authority when it comes to truth (while, at the same time, still admitting that we are unsuitable or unable to function as the final judge - we can leave that one for some other time!).

If we take your skeptical approach to its logical end, then I must ask, how can we be sure of anything at all? At its logical conclusion, it seems as though we would be required to know everything before we could be certain of anything, yet simultaneously we would have to acknowledge our limitations, biases, and the fallibility of our own human mind. Isn't there an unsolvable tension between this rationalist (I must know everything) / irrationalist (I can't know everything) worldview? With your approach, can you ever really find a stable and trustworthy starting point in this ever changing world and escape the deadly challenge of skepticism? Is there anything we can ever be certain about?

Posted by Greg Billingsley on 2012-06-06 09:15:05

Greg,

Thanks for your thoughts. However, I think you might have missed the general point.

Some years ago when I began researching and studying the resurrection claims of Christianity, I began with one simple observation. If you claim that someone was resurrected from the dead, you better have some convincing and compelling evidence that this person was dead to begin with. As I read the pages of the New Testament and listened to what apologists had to say concerning the matter, it became most apparent that the belief in the death of Jesus was exactly that--a belief. When Paul cites the ancient creed in I Cor 15:3-8 he is doing exactly that. He is citing what was believed. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of things can be believed. However, I was looking for hard "data" to substantiate this particular belief. What amazed me was the paucity of actual data or evidence to support the belief.

Apologists, themselves, seemed to understand this and many endeavored in the somewhat clumsy exercise of convincing others that Jesus had to die for a variety of reasons. Not the least of these was his physical condition prior to the cross. Whether it was Lee Strobel in his work, "The Case for Christ" or Mel Gibson in "The Passion of the Christ" apologists of all stripes were going out of their way to create this picture of Jesus as a man beaten into near unconsciousness and practically at death's door prior to the crucifixion. Although the New Testament tells us nothing with regard to the actual physical condition of Jesus prior to the cross, if apologists wanted to paint this picture it seemed okay to me. Maybe they were right. Maybe not, but so what.

As I continued to research crucifixion as a method of execution I came to realize some awkward exceptions to the crucifixion of Jesus, as it compared to most crucifixions. Additionally, the verse in Mark 15:44 was one that continued to create interest. If the apologists were right, why would Pilate wonder in any way at the news of Jesus' death? It made little sense then, and it makes little sense now. Your attempt to answer seems inadequate for several reasons.

1--Granted that many crucifixions took days for the victim to die, but if the apologists were right, Pilate would have not needed to demonstrate any type of wonder or surprise at the news. A quick death would have made perfect sense, if the apologists were correct.

2--Your mention of the thousands of crucifixions from which we have only the one recorded instance of a victim surviving falls short of the mark as an attempt to prove a point. The only valid comparison you can make would be to cite those crucifixions where the potential victim was, in fact, taken down after only a few hours on the cross and what became of that potential victim. In light of having no "data" along those lines we are left with only the one account we do have where 1 out of 3 survived, and we know nothing of those circumstances. We only know that the process was interrupted, they weren't left on the cross for days, and scavenger birds did not ravage the remains. Same as with Jesus.

You must remember, I'm not stating a belief that Jesus did not die. I am simply pointing out that any evidence or data to support the Christian belief that Jesus died by crucifixion is in short supply.

Another admission it seems to me that apologists make with regard to having little evidence to support this claim comes when they cite non-Christian writers of antiquity to support the claim. They cite Tacitus, Pliny, and quite a few others as "proof" that Jesus died. However, none of these writers give evidence to a death or can attest to such, because they cannot. They can give further historical confirmation to a crucifixion, but not to an actual death. When apologists are so willing to use non-evidence as if it were evidence it suggests to me that their motives need to be scrutinized in some depth. At the very least, it speaks to the actual lack of evidence to support the "belief".

Two more things:

1--There seems to be a disconnect between Mark 15:42-45 and the Gospel of John account in John 19:28-37. If John's account is correct, it seems that there would have been no need for the centurion to certify the death of Jesus. He would have already possessed the information that a spear had been thrust into the side of Jesus ensuring death. Pilate would have given the okay for the legs of the victims to be broken so death would be hastened. The centurion brings the news that Jesus was already dead and they didn't need to break the legs. Pilate says, "Are you sure? Go check again." The centurion at that point says there is no need, because instead of breaking his legs they threw a spear into his side. Something isn't right with these two accounts. I could go into the John account at much greater length, but there is insufficient time to do so at this point. It is an account that is worthy of much scrutiny, because it has been used so often by apologists to prove several points. I do find it intriguing that apologists put so much weight into an account that is found nowhere else and is written so many decades after the events it portends to describe.

2--Sister Z. I did nit want to end without addressing you question about what parts of the New Testament do I believe and which parts I do not believe. I have no idea which parts to believe and which parts not to believe. You'll notice that I mentioned Math 27:52-53 and Greg never responded to that. It would actually be more interesting to ask Greg that question. I'm sure his answer would be most interesting. Is this passage in Matthew an actual historical event or is it , perhaps, a legendary accretion added for effect? Greg's answer would be far more interesting than mine.

Additionally, what do I believe? I believe that a man named Jesus was crucified, it was believed that he died, it was believed that his body was placed in a tomb that people could walk in and out of, that several days later some followers of his discovered that the tomb where they believed his body had been was missing, and it came to be believed that he was resurrected from the dead as an explanation for the empty tomb. That's mostly it, I suppose. Not too interesting I suspect.

These things would be much simpler if Jesus, like John the Baptist, had been beheaded and his body buried 6 feet underground. Talk of a resurrection after that would be most impressive.

Greg, I, too, enjoy the conversation. Worthy of both our time and thought.

Posted by thom waters on 2012-05-29 14:24:43

Hello, Thom,
Thanks for your comments...You cite Mark 15:44 as evidence that Pilate was surprised at the relatively early death on the cross of Jesus, so you seem to believe parts of the Bible.....which parts of the story of His death do you not believe? And what do you think did happen?
And we don't know, by the way, that 'dead people were showing up all over the place'...Josephus might have mentioned that one, don't you think?! That's why I mentioned Jesus' part in Lazarus' return to life...... How else would that happen?

Greg, hello! I'd probably be better off just reading, but I'm too curious not to chime in. Thanks for the opportunity!

Posted by Zabelle on 2012-05-29 00:08:15

Hi Thom,

Is it possible that you have answered your own question? Could Pilate have been surprised because it typically took two to three days for someone to succumb to the torture of crucifixion, yet Jesus died that same day (which, although less common, was also not unheard of especially when considering the pre-crucifixion flogging he received)? I could see that as a sufficient source of Pilate's surprise (the greek word can also be translated as "wonder" so don't take this as a type of "shock" surprise but more of a curious "wonder" surprise), yet Jesus' early death was still common enough as to be believable. And then, to be able to release the body, Pilate had to confirm the death with the centurion, giving us another verification of his death. This seems to be the most straightforward understanding.

I would respectfully disagree with you as to even the remotest chance of Jesus surviving the crucifixion. First, nothing textual points to this possibility. Second, as I mentioned in my previous comment, the post-burial sightings of Jesus were not of a badly wounded, suffering, near-death man, but of one who had victory over death. The disciples would have never led the lives they did if it had been the former and not the latter. Third, the medical evidence given in the text reveal that Jesus died from either cardiac rupture or cardiorespiratory failure before the spear was thrust into his side ("On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ", Journal of the American Medical Association). And fourth, in the hundreds of thousands of Roman crucifixions, we only have one record of a survivor (as mentioned earlier), and even that one wasn't a full crucifixion because Josephus intervened and gained an early pardon for the man. Therefore, with the evidence we have there is no possibility of Jesus surviving the crucifixion.

Thanks again for the conversation.

Posted by Greg Billingsley on 2012-05-28 22:07:52

Hi Zabelle!

Yes, I agree, it was through the work of Jesus that Lazarus was raised. Thank you for reading and commenting!

Posted by Greg Billingsley on 2012-05-28 22:06:00

Sister Z,

Everyone has an opinion, and most of us are more than eager to share our opinions. We are glad to do so for a variety of reasons. Pick the one you like the best as your favorite reason for expressing your opinion about a matter or subject.

As a skeptic, somewhat in the tradition of the Academy, I find myself more inclined to simply ask questions and make observations. For example, crucifixion was not simply a means of execution, It was, as well, a considerable type of torture, where a victim could last for days in excruciating pain and agony. A beheading, on the other hand, was specifically a form of execution. Done, over, end of story.

As little as we know about crucifixions, it does seem certain that a person could survive a crucifixion if they were taken down early enough in the "process". Josephus even mentions coming across three of his friends who had been crucified. He manages to get permission to have them taken down, and one survives. The question becomes, at what point could a person survive a crucifixion if they were taken down before death? That would depend on a multiple number of considerations, but a person could survive such an ordeal given the right circumstances. As a general rule, however, crucified victims were not taken down before death, and usually their bodies remained on the cross until after scavenger birds and animals had ripped apart their bodies. It appears that this was not the case with Jesus. He was taken down after 3-6 hours. I'm not saying here that he survived, only pointing out that his was not the normal crucifixion. This gets us back to Pilate's surprise in Mark 15:44. What caused Pilate's surprise at the news? I could say much more concerning this matter, but I will not commit to that here. My simple observation is that the execution of Jesus was not a definitive one with an always predictable ending. Unlike a beheading, where the victim could not survive, a crucifixion, if the process were interrupted, could allow for the victim to survive. Simply an observation.

Another observation. The so-called burial of Jesus, which the Bible mentions and which Christian apologists are so certain took place, was not a "burial" in what we might call the Western understanding of a "burial". If I tell you that someone was buried after they died, you immediately and correctly imagine that they were buried underground, let"s say 5-6 feet under. This, however, was definitely not the case with Jesus. He was placed in a tomb, which was basically a hole in a cave, something that people could walk in and out of with little hardship. Rather than a "burial" it was a makeshift "entombment" where there was air to breathe and room to walk in and out. Not quite a real "burial".

Within two observations we are developing a case for the possible survival of a potential victim. Remember, I'm not saying that Jesus did not die, only advancing the possibility that he might not have died. The New Testament actually has done this for me without me adding anything of my own prejudice or bias.

Years ago when I was doing my Masters work a professor of mine was always quick to say, "No matter what you read or hear, just remember, it ain't necessarily so." I have always regarded that as good advice.

Back to Pilate. Greg, or anyone else, if you have any thoughts concerning why Pilate was surprised at the news of Jesus' death, please help us out.

Posted by thom waters on 2012-05-28 17:15:47

I'd ask "wasn't Lazarus raised THROUGH the work of Jesus?" but I'm out of my league here and only reading in intense interest and amazement at the scholarship. 'If you don't mind me asking, what do you believe really happened?' Me, too!
Thanks, Greg. (Janine's sis, Z)

Posted by Zabelle on 2012-05-28 11:23:49

Greg,

I appreciate your efforts to explain what Mr. Wright was driving at. However, I am not sure about letting him off the hook that quickly. That people would know the difference between a survivor and a person newly alive still strikes me as an odd notion. Your explanation also requires the need to believe in a "weak, wounded, bloodied, and half-dead Jesus". He might have been these things, but we simply don't know what his actual physical condition was prior to the cross and after he had been taken down.

I have often wondered about what caused the amazement and wonder of Pilate at the news that Jesus was already dead (Mark 15:42-44). If you accept the rather eisegetical picture painted by Mel Gibson in the "Passion of the Christ" and the equally bothersome picture painted by apologists who want us to believe that Jesus was almost dead before the cross, how do you explain the reaction of Pilate to the news that Jesus was already dead? I have never been given by anyone a reasonable explanation for Pilate's surprise. If the picture painted by Gibson and others is correct, Pilate's response should have been something along the lines of "I'm surprised he lasted this long." However, his response is quite the opposite, perhaps suggesting that the picture that apologists want us to believe about Jesus is simply incorrect. It might well be. There is, after all, an element of propaganda to what apologists say and write. You cannot completely disassociate their teaching from their tendenz. They not only need things to be a certain way, they want things to be a certain way. If you believe the Markan account, you must be able to explain the reaction of Pilate to the news. After all, no one more than Pilate knew first-hand and close-up the actual physical condition of Jesus prior to the cross. It is, at the very least, a curiosity. I won't even go into a lengthy discourse on Acts 14 and the stoning of Paul. You know the story. At the least, having been stoned, dragged out of the city, and assumed to be dead, Paul's recovery seems to have been quite out of the ordinary considering that he traveled the next day and continued preaching. But I digress.

As to what I believe happened. Habermas, Craig, Licona and others have spent thousands of hours developing their Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection. They have done so, however, at the expense of not discussing all the "facts" at our disposal. That their approach is a selective one in order to build their defense for the proposition that Jesus was raised from the dead should come as no surprise. Each of us does this in our argumentation for what we are defending. The genius to the Minimal Facts Approach is that it tries to remove the debate from the arena of "opinion" into the arena of "fact". The weakness to it, however, is that they have sacrificed certain obvious facts, which they do not mention, because these facts would weaken their argument.

A proposition is not simply true because it has not been proven to be false. You can develop reasons for rejecting it, and if these reasons are considerably compelling then that becomes a sufficient basis for rejecting the proposition personally. So the question it seems is not so much what do I believe happened, but, rather, is there sufficient evidence and data to reasonably conclude that one Jesus did not get raised from the dead? To this question I say there is more than ample evidence to reject the proposition that Jesus was raised from the dead. And this evidence rests on the aforementioned "facts" to which I referred that Habermas and others conveniently either ignore or have never thought about as such. I consider it a possibility that they have never entertained these "facts" or considered them. Myopia can do that.

Finally, MIchael Licona in his work "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach" says this, "We need to be reminded every so often that a consensus of scholars does not establish the objectivity or truth of their conclusion." I happen to agree with him. Consensus only establishes agreement, not truth. The consensus might, in fact, prove to be true, but it is not the consensus that makes a thing true.

A quick parting thought that I meant to mention earlier. With regard to legendary accretions within the Jesus story, I think there might be some within the gospel accounts. It would appear that such an example might be Matthew 27:51-53. Also, it should be noted that we have another account of "resurrection".

Thom

Posted by Thom Waters on 2012-05-14 13:41:09

Thanks again for your response, Thom.

I do agree with you that the empty tomb is the launching pad for belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Obviously, you can't have a resurrection without first having an empty tomb. Also, I wonder if a resurrection would have been seen as less unusual in first century Palestine than it currently is in the post-Enlightenment Western culture that we live in today. Probably so, although, for perspective, it would have been less unusual than it was in first century Greco-Roman culture as well. Further, because of Jesus' previous healing and resurrection miracles, it may have been even less unusual for his followers to accept a resurrection since they had seen it from Jesus at least three times before. (Of course, one can't argue that if they don't believe those previous resurrections really happened.)

However, instead of the usual/unusual character of a first century resurrection, I think more in terms of expectations. What were the expectations of first century Jews who believed in a bodily resurrection? There is considerable evidence that their expectation was that the resurrection would occur on the last day. That doesn't mean that they didn't believe other resurrections couldn't occur (there are 3 in the OT), however that was not their primary expectation. We can see this distinction explicitly in John 11:23-24. Martha hoped that Jesus would resurrect Lazarus because she had seen him do it before and she believed he was the Messiah, but her expectation was for Lazarus to be resurrected on the last day. (John 20:9 also mentions that they didn't yet understand that Jesus had to be resurrected - that wasn't their expectation.)

I hadn't read N.T. Wright's "Jesus' Resurrection and Christian Origins" before, so I looked it up and did a quick scan. Again, I think this comes down to Jewish resurrection expectations. Their expectation was that a body would experience a "reversal, the undoing, the conquest of death and its effects" in resurrection. This is clearly the opposite of a beaten, wounded, bloody, and near-death person who survived a crucifixion (of which, the only recorded example from history that I know of is when the victims were pardoned mid-crucifixion, yet two of the three still died). In other words, how could a weak, wounded, bloodied, and half-dead Jesus, if he had been the "survivor" of a crucifixion, have been confused with a "newly alive" person who had conquered victoriously over death in resurrection? I believe that is Wright's point. (Wright previously refers to the resurrection as giving "new life," hence the interesting "newly alive" terminology.)

In general, I think the issue may be that you are primarily using early Christian documents to establish a pre-Christian first century Jewish resurrection expectation. I believe it may be more appropriate to refer primarily (although it doesn't have to be exclusively) to pre-Christian Jewish literature for this subject. That is one reason why I referred to Wright's book; he has done extensive research into this area.

I appreciate the dialog. If you don't mind me asking, what do you believe really happened?

Posted by Greg Billingsley on 2012-05-13 23:55:33

Greg,

Sorry if I over-simplified your position with regard to the empty tomb and how it fit in with your logic and position. It is interesting to note, however, that apparently the first believer in the resurrection of Jesus came to belief upon the discovery of the empty tomb (John 20:1-10) The empty tomb is the launching pad for the belief. And, as I tried to point out, at this time there would have been nothing unusual about offering up "resurrection" as an explanation for the empty tomb. Perhaps "commonplace" was not the best choice of words, but "resurrection" as an explanation for the empty tomb was not so unexpected and unusual as some would suggest it would have been.

How many people do you believe the disciples "raised from the dead" after Jesus gave them their charge? Wouldn't you have expected some incredulity on their part as if to say, "What in the world are you talking about?" And as a sign to John the Baptist, how would the act of raising people from the dead be a sign to him if it specifically lied outside his "worldview" at the time?

With regard to N.T. Wright, he has a most interesting statement in his short work entitled "Jesus' Resurrection and Christian Origins". He states, "There has been no shortage of hypotheses designed to explain why the early Christians really did believe that Jesus really had been raised from the dead. These come in many shapes and sizes, but most of them feature 1 of 3 types of explanations 1--Jesus did not really die; he somehow survived, 2--The tomb was empty, but nothing else happened, 3--The disciples had visions of Jesus, but without there being an empty tomb. The first can be disposed of swiftly. Roman soldiers knew how to kill people, especially rebel kings. First Century Jews knew the difference between a survivor and someone newly alive."

Now with all due respect to Mr. Wright this last sentence is one of the oddest, most peculiar I have ever come across with regard to the Resurrection. How would anyone, let alone just a first century Jew, know how to distinguish between a survivor and someone newly alive? The only way I can imagine having this ability would be to have a healthy number of experiences dealing with this very thing. Is that what Mr. Wright is suggesting here? What else could he be suggesting? This experience with people "newly alive" must have been somewhat common. If not, how do you make the statement that he has made? I suppose you might suggest that Mr. Wright is simply "off his rocker." He might be.

My point is a simple one. There seems to be evidence to suggest that the notion of "resurrection" extended to something more than a General Resurrection at the end of the Age. And the Resurrection of Jesus as an explanation for the empty tomb would not have been that far-fetched. Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, and how many more might there have been? For all we know dead people might have been showing up all over the place. This might just be the result of what you get during a time when visions, dreams, trances, and voices from heaven ruled the day.

Thom

Posted by Thom Waters on 2012-05-12 11:32:26

Hi Thom,

Thank you for reading and for your comment. I appreciate it.

I apologize that you got that conclusion (empty tomb = resurrection) from this post. That certainly wasn't my intent, but I admit that I am not the best writer and so it may have crept in there. If you don't mind, will you point out the places where you saw that flawed logic so I can make sure to correct it? Thanks.

Throughout this whole series, I hope my logic has been more like this: trustworthy witnesses + empty tomb + post-burial appearances + origination of Christianity + no other alternatives = resurrection. That doesn't perfectly state it (I think there are a few other pieces that I've shown here and there), but hopefully that formula is a bit more accurate than just empty tomb = resurrection.

The purpose of this specific post in the ongoing series on the resurrection was to give reasons against the "Legend Theory," so it is mainly part of the "no other alternatives" section with a couple points in the categories of "empty tomb" and "post-burial appearances" (found in point 6 above), and "origin of Christianity" (found in point 7 above).

As for the resurrection of the dead being commonplace, I'm interested to hear more from you. It is my understanding that there was a somewhat-common belief in a general one-time resurrection on the last day (end of the world) in the Jewish religion at that time, but there was not an expectation of an individual's immediate resurrection. Additionally, this is only somewhat-common because at least one very large group, the Sadducees, did not believe in a future resurrection at all (N.T. Wright treats the ancient Jewish resurrection beliefs extensively with convincing arguments in his book, The Resurrection of the Son of God).

This belief in a resurrection, however, should be distinguished from claims of actual resurrections. Actual resurrections were not commonplace at all. In fact, I don't know of any other claimed resurrections in any literature, outside of the NT documents (in which there are 6 claims), that originated in that Greco-Roman / Jewish society at that time. I believe your second example, Matthew 11:2-6, attests to this. If actual resurrections were commonplace, if they happened all the time, how would John the Baptist be able to distinguish it as a sign? For something to be a "sign," it would need to be a rare and unexpected event.

Thanks again for your comment!

Posted by Greg Billingsley on 2012-05-12 08:25:02

An empty tomb by itself establishes nothing, unless you enjoy bad logic and non-sensical syllogisms.

Your syllogism looks like this:

An empty tomb means that a resurrection has taken place.

The tomb of Jesus was empty.

Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.

Since your major premise is flawed, your conclusion must be rejected. An empty tomb means only that the tomb is empty.

On the other hand, if you are going to claim a resurrection, you better have an empty tomb. The Resurrection Story is simply an explanation for an empty tomb. That it was offered as an explanation should come as no surprise. People being raised from the dead and stories to this effect were quite commonplace during this time. Even in Matthew 10:5-8 Jesus, himself, charges the disciples to "raise the dead" as part of the work they are to do on their mission. And in Matthew 11:2-6 people being raised from the dead was to be a sign to John the Baptist. There was simply nothing unusual about someone being raised from the dead during this time. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply ignoring the very scriptures, themselves, upon which this belief is founded and perpetuated.

Thanks.

Posted by Thom Waters on 2012-05-11 16:40:26

About Greg Billingsley

I am a Computer Systems Engineer and partner in several businesses, as well as a Ruling Elder at Trinity Grace Church (PCA) in Northwest Arkansas. My amazing wife and three wonderful daughters...
Read More

Alternate Theories To The Resurrection – The Legend Theory

The Legend (Myth) Theory

Conclusion

About Greg Billingsley

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Topics

Series

Blog Archives