Jesus Resurrect Was Jesus Resurrected?

¶ … Jesus Resurrect

Was Jesus Resurrected?

In modern Christian theology, there may be no more important question than whether or not Jesus was resurrected. After all, the corner stone of traditional Christian faith is that Jesus died and rose from the tomb. His eternal life and defeat of death is what has given rise to the Christian belief that belief in Christ is the pathway to eternal life. Moreover, for most of the devout, it is not sufficient that Christ's resurrection be a spiritual one. Instead, one of the hallmarks of the faith is that Jesus was bodily resurrected, and that his followers will also one day be able to defy death. For people who ascribe to this belief, the resurrection was a miracle. The fact that it cannot be explained by science or proven by evidence does not detract from its likelihood, because one would not expect to be able to replicate a miracle, nor would a miracle need proof. Moreover, a miracle is the last explanation to which one resorts; and one resorts to the idea of a miracle only after exhausting all other possibilities. Those who deny that Jesus actually resurrected believe that the possibilities have not been exhausted and that there was no resurrection. While this may seem as if it is merely a question of faith, the issues do not deal so much in faith as they do in fact. The issue is not whether one believes that Jesus resurrected, but whether one believes that there is credible evidence of a resurrection.

The two scholars debating the issue, William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann, disagree about the answer. Ludemann believes that the events surrounding the early history of Christianity could be explained in naturalistic terms, without resorting to miracles. (p.11). Craig disagrees, while he acknowledges that there might be a naturalistic set of circumstances that would result in the events described as the resurrection, he believes that the most reasonable interpretation of that evidence supports the truth of the resurrection (p.11). Looking at the evidence provided, Craig's point-of-view seems more compelling. Therefore, it seems most logical to assume that Jesus was resurrected, even though both men present compelling arguments for their points-of-view.

The book is set up in an interesting style, presenting arguments in a debate between two principles, in which they outline their key arguments and offer rebuttals for the other's arguments. After they set up their arguments, there are chapters offering support for the two different positions. The book itself does not take a position on whether Jesus' resurrection actually occurred. Instead, it simply allows the debaters and their supporters to present evidence to bolster their opinions. Ultimately, the reader is left to make his or her own determination on whether the resurrection occurred; this reader found Craig's argument more compelling and believes in the factuality of the resurrection.

Craig presents his arguments first and does so in the manner of a historical scholar. First, he discusses the areas where he and Ludemann agree, and that is mainly on the fact that those who believe in the resurrection are acknowledging the intervention by the divine in daily life. He outlines the criteria normally used to assess historical hypotheses. These criteria include whether the hypothesis has a significant explanatory scope and power, whether it is plausible, whether it is ad hoc, whether the hypothesis is in accord with accepted beliefs, and whether the hypothesis outstrips rival theories. Craig combines those criteria with four facts that are readily accepted by Old Testament scholars to determine that an actual resurrection is the best explanation for the events in early Christianity. These four facts include Jesus' burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, Jesus' postmortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples' belief in the resurrection. Combined together, Craig believes that the facts best support the hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead. He also takes the opportunity to pre-emptively counter Ludemann's philosophical argument that miracles cannot exist, which is a critical step when one considers other writings by Ludemann on the topic.

Ludemann's response to Craig immediately appears circular. He begins by countering the assertion that Jesus rose from the dead with a variety of questions based in the natural. Ludemann wants to know if it was possible for a decaying corpse to rise again. However, by doing this, Ludemann is refusing to accept that Craig has already acknowledged that, if Jesus did resurrect, it was a miracle. To try to place natural limits on a supernatural occurrence is to engage in a tautological argument, because such an argument is based on the notion that the supernatural cannot occur. In fact, this may be the main weakness present in much of Ludemann's commentary; rather than engaging in any substantial arguments aimed at disproving the existence of miracles, Ludemann simply relies on the assertion that they cannot exist. If there is an all-powerful superior being in charge of the universe, then nothing is outside of the realm of possibility, even if it conflicts with natural laws. If there is no such being, then natural laws govern all. However, presupposing the non-existence of such a supernatural being means that Ludemann's argument lacks support.

Despite those weaknesses, Ludemann's response to Craig's argument does raise some valid issues, which make one question Craig naming some items as facts. First and most significant, the gospels were not written contemporaneously with events.

Instead, Biblical scholars suggest that the earliest Gospels were actually written years after the events in question. Therefore, the validity and reliability of the Gospels as a historical source is questionable. Moreover, the oldest tale of the resurrection, which is found in 1 Corinthians 15, does not describe an empty tomb or a physical resurrection, though it does describe Paul's encounter with Jesus. Ludemann uses his passage to explain his hypothesis that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus were actually religious visions experienced by his followers, rather than him actually reappearing on earth.

Craig has no problem countering Ludemann's hypothesis that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus were actually visions or hallucinations. Craig points out that even if an isolated appearance could be attributed to a vision, the historical record supports multiple appearances. Furthermore, Craig criticizes Ludemann's attempt to make Peter's guilt over denying Christ into the source of Christian visions of Jesus, since there is absolutely no factual support for such a notion. Craig previously discussed the idea that Paul would have assumed that the tomb was empty, thereby explaining why he neglected to mention the tomb's emptiness. Furthermore, he highlights the fact that other Gospel passages do specifically mention the empty tomb, which cannot be explained by anything other than a physical resurrection.

Ludemann's first rebuttal takes issue with Craig's characterizations of Ludemann's described visions as hallucinations. Ludemann stresses that he is not suggesting that the visions were hallucinations, but he still limits them to a cognitive experience, rather than an actual experience. Ludemann returns to an idea he referenced in previous writings, which is that divine intervention does not exist, so miracles cannot occur. While both of those arguments do little to bolster his claims, not all of Ludemann's arguments are critically weak. In fact, he makes a strong challenge to the idea of the Gospels as a historical source. Instead, Ludemann points out that the Gospels were written during and after the development of a resurrection tradition, which means that they reflected religious doctrine at the time that they were written. During the early history of the church, there were competing theories about Jesus, and various theories were presented to support the different religious points-of-view at the time.

In his second rebuttal, Craig takes the time to make a strong historical argument for Jesus' physical resurrection. While the Gospels are a questionable source of historical information, there are other documented writings from that time. It is clear that the Roman and Jewish authorities were concerned about the development of the early church. Craig points out that, had the tomb been occupied, it would have been an easy matter for those authorities to indicate Jesus' dead body as a means of disproving the notion that he resurrected. However, there is no evidence to suggest that they did so.