Evidence #2
Joseph of Arimathea buried
Jesus of Nazareth in a Jewish tomb.
As we will be covering more details
surrounding this chain of events, it is important to note that the more
specific we dig into this topic, it is crucial to use sources that supply the
most details surrounding these events. The Gospels are unanimous that Joseph of
Arimathea buried Jesus in a tomb on the same day he was crucified. The Gospel references
for this event are Matthew (Matthew 27:57-61), Mark (Mark 15:42-47), Luke (Luke
23:50-56) and John (John 19:38-42).
Another source in the NT, though much earlier, is the Apostle Paul who cites
Jesus’ burial in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul cites an early creed that he was given
by the apostles in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Galatians 1:18).
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, he mentions Jesus’ burial in the following words: “…that he was buried, that he was raised on
the third day according to the scriptures…”
This is the earliest written account
of Jesus’ burial along with the gospels. It is also important to note that
there was an emergency on Joseph’s part to give Jesus an honorable burial due
to what was done to criminals’ bodies after their crucifixion. As I mentioned
before, it was imperative to remove the remains of a criminal before the
Passover because of their customs. It was by biblical set of laws that an
unblemished lamb be slaughtered on 14 Nissan (Exodus 12:6) and for the remains
to be removed before the day of the Passover (15 Nissan). As you can see, there
was a sense of urgency on Joseph’s behalf because he knew that if the body of
Jesus was not removed, it would either be devoured by vultures or would be cast
aside outside the city to lay waste. It was also due to the following day being
the Sabbath that a burial be performed because no work is allowed on the
Sabbath being that it is the Lord’s Day. No Jew was to perform any type of work
on the Sabbath; furthermore to do so would be punishable by death under Jewish
law.
Evidence #3
The tomb was
discovered empty on Easter morning.
An unusual discovery ensued the
third day after Jesus was laid in the tomb. It was found completely empty! What
evidence is there to affirm that the tomb was actually empty? Let us take a
look at what we have. The Gospel Narratives all affirm once again that the tomb
was found empty Easter morning on the first day of the week. Matthew (Matthew 28:2-6), Mark (Mark 16:4),
Luke (Luke 24: 2-3) and John (John 20:1-8) record Jesus’ body being
absent from the tomb he was laid in that morning on the first day of the week.
The Apostle Paul affirms or implies an empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15:4 (that
he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures,).
In a 1st century Jewish mind, a
resurrection and an occupied tomb was a contradiction in terms.
In essence,
the Gospels are all unanimous that women were the first to report the empty
tomb and to seeing an angel(s) affirming that Jesus had been risen.
One
particular source that mentions the empty tomb, but in a different light, is
from the Toledot Yeshu which is a later document going back no earlier than the
2nd century and clearly by its content is an anti-Christian source. The
document alleges that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, which I will cover
in a little bit.
However, due to the late nature of
its completion into book form, the majority of scholars do not consider this
source reliable historical material today.
One matter to note on is that if
it were false that Jesus had been buried in a tomb, then we would have seen competing
documents in the 1st century contradicting what the Gospels say. But we have no
documents indicating such a thing. In fact, none of the Jewish or Roman
authorities even dispute the tomb being empty. They all admit it! As a result,
it is reasonable to concur that the body of Jesus was indeed buried in a tomb
on the same day he was crucified and that the tomb was empty on Easter morning
on the first day of the week.
Objection #1
The disciples stole
the body and buried it somewhere else.
There is no evidence in the gospels
in regards to the disciples’ nature, motives, or background that would give
them a reason to do such a thing. Let me address this theory in 2-3 ways.
Roman
soldiers were ordered to guard the tomb Jesus was laid in. If the disciples
were to steal the body, they would have to bribe the guards, remove the body
before the following morning, or better yet overcome all the Roman guards
before taking the body. Several weaknesses to this theory are apparent.
First, bribing the guards would require more money on the disciples’
part than the Pharisees who were rich compared to the lowly standard of living
of the disciples. Removing the body before the following day was not only
risking their own lives but was also violating the Sabbath on which they could
do no work. Second, defeating the
Roman guards was an extremely unlikely feat due to the fact that they were
trained fighters and killed for a living and would lose their lives if they
failed their mission.
The most compelling reason that this theory is a
fallacy is because there would be no motive on the disciples’ part to steal it
due to the fact they didn’t even expect for there to be a resurrection. If the
disciples were expecting this to happen, it would make sense as to why they would
pursue such a task, but there is no evidence that they did so. The disciples
even were skeptical and dismissed the idea of Jesus dying and coming back from
the dead as something that could not happen. They were down beaten, depressed,
and hopelessly defeated men who had surely thought that Jesus was the man who
could deliver them from Roman rule. But, there was no expectation on their part
to give them any motive to attempt to steal the body.
Thirdly, if the disciples stole the body, how could the Roman
guards claim they stole the body, while sleeping at the same time? It does not
add up for the disciples to concoct a story that instigate falsehood just to be
ruthlessly and maliciously persecuted and eventually killed for something they
knew would be a lie, if they were making it all up.
Objection #2
The Jewish and
Roman authorities stole the body and buried it elsewhere.
Once again, it would have been
effortless for the Religious leaders and the Romans to squash the disciples’
message that Jesus had risen from the dead mainly by producing the body and
parading it around it the city for all to see. That was all that was needed to
be done to refute what the Apostles preached. Secondly, what motive would they have to take the very body they
commanded to be guarded and put it somewhere else? It would almost seem nothing
more than a hide-and-seek game. The penalty for grave robbing was death as
there was an archaeological discovery of a tomb with a message declaring
capital punishment for anyone discovered to stealing a body that was buried.
This tomb was found in the 1st century and surprisingly in the same town where
Jesus was raised. Even so, there is no motive for the leaders to steal the body
when all they would have to do is display the body and dismantle the message of
the apostles. Better yet, there is no textual evidence from the 1st century
that even suggests such a thing has happened.
Objection#3
The
disciples destroyed any evidence that went against their message.
Aside from complete absent textual
evidence for this possibility, it is important to note that these people lacked
cultural status in the eyes of their peers and contemporaries. In essence,
these people preached the gospel message (Jesus’ death, burial and
resurrection) in the very same city that he was put to death. It seems rather
unlikely they were attempting to hide any information; otherwise why not
publicize it in a city where no could verify what the apostles were saying? The
apostles had very little or no political power and had no means to do away with
any government sanctioned documents, even when it disgraced them as people. The
Apostle Peter made a bold move with the residents of Jerusalem when he
proclaimed their involvement with the crucifixion of Jesus and making mention
of the miracles he did in their midst. It almost seems that if the apostles
wanted to invent the message successfully, they would have chosen a different
city with no community to refute them. And furthermore, the disciples had no
control over the city and who would compose writings against their movement!
The enemies of Christians wanted nothing less than to stomp out this movement
and they could have done it easily by displaying the body of Jesus. Moreover,
this suggestion is entirely ad hoc and is unfalsifiable.
Evidence #4
The
disciples along with others claimed to have seen Jesus alive after the tomb was
discovered empty.
Oftentimes scholars and historians
will invoke a commonly used method in determining the truthfulness of an
ancient work. The criterion of embarrassment is applied to show whether the
author of the source is fabricating a story or actually telling the truth. The
goal is to see if the author exalts himself or makes realistic statements about
him and others. If the author will go as far to make statements about him or
others that can put him in a bad light, the chances of truthfulness increase.
Usually when someone fabricates or makes up a story, they usually will insert
details to make themselves look better and shy away from issues that would be
embarrassing to mention. The Gospels mention a few things in regards to the
empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus that make it less likely to be an
invention. Before I go further, let me make a few notes on the importance of
determining the truthfulness of this event and how to get past barriers to
reach valid verdicts on the resurrection.
Josh McDowell, a former skeptic to
Christianity, writes in his most recent book Evidence for the Resurrection the following words about determining
the truthfulness of a historical event: “When
evaluating the options regarding what happened that first Easter, we need to
apply two principles. First, the theories or alternate explanations must take
into account all the facts surrounding the resurrection. J.N.D Anderson, head
of the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies in London emphasizes that, ‘the
evidence must be considered as a whole.’ It is comparatively easy to find an
alternative explanation for one or another of the different strands that make
up this testimony. But such explanations are valueless unless they fit the
other strands in the testimony as well. The second principle to follow in the
examination of historical events is not to force the evidence into a
preconceived conclusion, but rather to let it speak for itself. Historian
Philip Schaff warns that “the purpose of the historian is not to construct a
history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to
reproduce it from the best evidence and to let the evidence speak for itself.”
(Pp. 199-200; Evidence for the Resurrection)(Philip Schaff, History of the
Christian Church, Vol. 1).
These two principles are essential
in evaluating – as opposed to deducting or overlooking as many skeptics do –
the resurrection as to whether it is a historical event or not. In arriving to
the best explanation that explains all the facts, one must be objective as
humanly possible and strive to set aside any preconceived prejudices (i.e.
denial of miracles, existence of God, etc.) in order to make a reasonable
establishment of what took place.
Lee Strobel, in his making of The
Case for Christ, recounted his experience from taking journalism at the
University of Missouri that it was always critical in following the evidence
wherever it took you. Even be willing to flow with it if it brought you to an
uncomfortable situation. Too many times skeptics will object to the evidence
made for the resurrection with alternative theories but they nearly fail with
presenting evidence to the contrary. I assert, on behalf of my experience with
these issues, that unless one has evidence to the contrary (theories do not
equal evidence), conjectural hypotheses must be believed on with blind faith
with flimsy evidence supporting them.
All of the Gospel narratives, except
for Luke, affirm that Jesus appeared first and foremost to the women who were
disciples of him. Matthew affirms it (Matthew 28:9, 10), Mark (Mark 16:9, 10)
and John affirm it (John 20:14-17). The Gospel narratives by and large are very
explicit on the circumstances surrounding the empty tomb in regards to Jesus
appearing to others and essentially the women and the Twelve.
In reference to the criterion of embarrassment used by
scholars to determine the authenticity of the truthfulness of a historical
account, the Gospels contain details that most likely would not have been
infiltrated into the accounts had they been either overly-biased or more
concerned with their cultural status than anything else. One example is Jesus’
appearances after the empty tomb. Every author, with the exception of Luke,
agrees that Jesus first appeared to women. Why is that significant? Taking into
account how 1st century Jewish women were perceived, it would have been
considered absurd to use women as reliable witnesses to an event that was
highly controversial. Women were, on rare occasions, allowed to testify in a
court of law. But their testimony was not considered valid in determining the
truth of an actual event.
After the women had seen Jesus alive after
discovering the empty tomb, they ran back to the disciples and reported what
they saw. The disciples did not believe what Mary Magdalene reported about
Jesus (Mark 16:11), believed the women (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother
of James along with other women) were crazy and did not take them seriously
(Luke 24:10, 11).
Along with the women witnessing the risen Christ, there
remains another element that appears to demonstrate the honesty of the Gospel
writers. They happen to mention that Thomas, who was not with the disciples
when Jesus appeared to them in the Upper Room (John 20:19-23), was told by the
disciples themselves that they had seen Jesus alive. He was skeptical and
refused to believe unless he would personally see the nail prints and the scars
on Jesus (John 20:25). It was only when Jesus personally appeared to them again
and challenged Thomas to make sure what he was seeing was real (John
20:27).
In reaffirming what I mentioned above in the opening statement of this
evidence, mentioning accounts of some of Jesus’ appearances in the Gospels that
reveal an embarrassment or dishonor on behalf of the individuals really show
that they did not even intend to make up such a story.
The Apostle Paul’s
account of Jesus’ appearances appears to be the most widely accepted by the
most critical scholars as of today. This account is found in 1 Corinthians
15:3-8 where he cites a creed from the early Christian community in Jerusalem.
The creed goes as follows: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what
I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and
that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He
appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain
until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all
the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to
me also."
This creed is of highly importance because of three reasons.
One, it contains extremely early data that has been dated by scholars to as far
as 2-5 years after the death of Jesus. Second, it contains specific people who
saw the risen Jesus. Last but not least, it mentions two candidates who were
skeptics to Jesus prior to his crucifixion and resurrection. I will elaborate
on all these three arguments one at a time.
Early Data
From a historian’s perspective,
early data is critical when determining the accuracy of a historical event. One
could argue that, if one has earlier the data, there is less possibility of
legend creeping in to distort the truthfulness of the accounts. Now the early
data does not prove that what was recorded is true; however it does demonstrate
careful accuracy of the writers of the events they recorded. The main rule is
this: if the data is extremely early, then there is a good reason to affirm its
reliability. This creed has been dated from 24-36 months after the death of
Christ (30 A.D.) One of the crucial questions is where did Paul get this creed?
Paul received this most likely from Peter and James when he went to Jerusalem
three years after his conversion to confirm that he was preaching the same
message as they were (Galatians 1:18,19). In essence, the time factor for this
creed completely eliminates any possibility of legendary corruption due to the
eyewitnesses that are mentioned and the eyewitnesses who were enemies of the
early church. One highly respected scholar and Greco-Roman historian A.N.
Sherwin-White noted that it would require to go beyond two or three generations
for legend to wipe out historical truth. A tradition passed down through one
generation is not even close to being the product of legend. The reason being is
because in order for legend to succeed, eyewitnesses cannot be present.
Eyewitnesses
As Lee Strobel mentions in his book
The Case for Christ, eyewitness testimony is absolutely critical in
establishing what happened in a crime scene or another event in history. Can
eyewitnesses lie about what they report? Absolutely they can. But it gives more
insight into what happened and gives firsthand reports of the events. What do
we have with the resurrection appearances? Paul cites several eyewitnesses of
Jesus appearing to them: Peter, the Twelve, five hundred people at one given
time, to James (believed to be the brother of Jesus), to the remaining
apostles, and then lastly to Paul himself.
If we have eyewitness accounts of
the Resurrection appearances, then this is by far firsthand information that is
given from a direct source. He is mentioning specific people who could be
cross-examined by skeptics who doubted the historicity of this event to
determine whether it was true or not. Paul mentioning 500 people, who
personally saw the risen Jesus, not only mentions them, but also clarifies that
some were still living. In modern terms, Paul would be saying,”Hey! If you
would to like to check if what I am saying is true, feel free to cross-examine
them as well.” Paul was putting himself and nearly the entire Christian
community at risk by giving this information out. It is highly doubtful he
would do such a thing if it were false. Furthermore, Paul says that Jesus
personally appeared to him, which makes this firsthand testimony (Galatians
1:12; 1 Corinthians 15:8). The last two specific eyewitnesses he mentions in
this creed is James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul himself. This helps
establish that it wasn’t just only believers who believed in Jesus from the get
go. These were two men who did not believe in Jesus their entire lives, up
until they believed they saw the risen Christ. James, who was a brother of
Jesus, did not believe in him during Jesus’ ministry (Mark 3:21) and Paul was a
persecutor of Christians before he saw the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:9;
Acts 9:1; Galatians 1:13). Having been enemies of Christ and then radically
preaching the message of the Resurrection had to have result of an experience
with Jesus.
Paul’s and James’ conversion to Christianity are huge. One reason
being is because they were both unlikely candidates for such a radical 180
degree turn in their lifestyles. Paul, essentially, is extraordinary due to the
fact that he fiercely persecuted the church in Jerusalem and wanted to kill
Christians. In essence, there was no reason for him to want to believe in Jesus
as the Messiah.
One secular source mentions the Christians at least reporting
to have seen Jesus after he had been crucified (Josephus Antiquities of the
Jews, “They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his
crucifixion and that he was alive ;”). Once again, this source is not meant to
prove the validity of this event but was to show that this belief did not creep
up in many centuries later but was prominent even in the mid 1st century.
Objection #1
The Gospels
contradict Paul’s account when Paul does not mention women at all.
While it is certainly true that
Paul does not mention women as eyewitness testimony, he does not say that Peter
was the first to have seen Jesus. He mainly puts Peter first on the list. This
list is a summary of eyewitnesses and Paul most likely did not mention them due
to the perceived image of 1st century Jewish women. He places a bigger emphasis
on logical priority rather than on temporal priority. In other words, he is not
concerned with an exhaustive account on the times and locations of Jesus’
appearances but mentions more key and influential people in his time due to the
fact that men could be presented in a court of law as witnesses to an event.
Moreover, this objection assumes that, if one account doesn’t contain a detail
that another account has, one of the accounts has to be mistaken, or they are
contradicting each other. There are two factors that need to be mentioned here.
First, the quality of a source or an
account is not determined by the amount or quantity of information that it
contains. One account can contain very little information while another one can
have abundance of information. This should not lead one to think that the more
detailed account is somehow more truthful than the less informative account.
This is not to say that the detailed account is just as helpful as the other
account in gaining more insight into the situation. Second, it misconstrues what a real contradiction is. A
contradiction has nothing to do with
how much information an account has, when compared to another account. A
contradiction is about the truthfulness of both accounts. If an account
asserts, for example, that John was the brother of Jesus in a certain context,
and another account – in the same context not a different one – asserts that
John was not the brother of Jesus, then we would have a problem. To keep
it simple, a contradiction happens when 2 accounts assert 2 different things
that directly collide with each other; hence they cannot both be true.
So to sum it all up, there is no
contradiction between the Gospel accounts and Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians
15 because Paul did not assert there were no women. He simply omitted them.
Omitting a group of people does not necessarily mean denial of their presence
or participation in the event.
Objection #2
The disciples
hallucinated while believing they actually saw Jesus
This hypothesis has been very prominent
throughout the century. Despite its flaws, it continues to be introduced as a
way of explaining of what happened to the disciples.
In essence,
hallucination only happens with one person at a time and is completely
internal. The dictionary defines hallucination as follows: a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind,
caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain
toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images. As
mentioned, hallucinations are completely internal, is caused by mental
disorders, and most commonly attributed to drug abuse. Several problems occur
with the hallucination theory.
First, when people hallucinate, it arises from an emotional
excitement or an expectation (Gary Habermas – The Historical Jesus) for
something to happen.
Secondly, if
the disciples hallucinated of seeing Jesus, it fails to account for the other
appearances for the women, James, Paul, and the five hundred that Paul mentions
in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. It also would show that the body of Jesus would still
have been in the tomb. If the disciples had been preaching that Jesus rose from
the dead and the body was still in the tomb, the movement would have been
completely squashed right then and there. The possibility of a hallucination
possibly lies with Peter but fails to account for the remaining appearances.
Thirdly, the disciples did not even
expect for such a thing to occur due to their emotional state after Jesus was
crucified. They did not believe the women when they reported seeing Jesus (Luke
24:10, 11), which obviously shows that there was no expectation on their part
for a resurrection. The disciples were not even expecting Jesus’ death let
alone a resurrection (Mark 8:32; 9:31 ;)! Peter even rebukes Jesus for thinking
such a thing in Mark 8:32 (He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him
aside and began to rebuke him.)
Objection #3
The Resurrection
is a legend developed by the disciples long after Jesus’ death
It is crucially important to note
how legends grew up in ancient times in order to determine if such is the case
here with Paul’s data in his first letter to the Christians in Corinth. A
highly respected scholar and Roman-Greco historian A.N. Sherwin-White did a
study on how legends grew up in ancient times. From his studies, he concluded
that one would have to bypass two-three generations in order for legend to wipe
out historical truth. The creed cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is as
early as two years! Two years nearly destroys possibility of legendary
corruption and when one objects he must bear the burden of proof in an attempt
to disprove it.
Nevertheless, when a historian or scholar acknowledges Jesus'
crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, and the disciples belief that they had seen
Jesus alive after his burial, but yet refuses to conclude that Jesus did rise
from the dead, is due to an issue of the will and not a lack of evidence.
