Why I Believe the Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is True (Part 1)

Introduction



As I begin to embark on this quest to validate the historicity of the Resurrection of Christ, I will make one thing clear. This article is not attempting to prove the existence of a theistic God or attempting to prove that miracles happen. This is simply a work discussing 5 basic evidences that have been accepted as historical fact from a wide spectrum of scholars from many theological beliefs. These New Testament scholars include evangelicals leading up to skeptics. What I am about to demonstrate are 5 evidences, that are accepted by mainstream scholarship today, that confirm why I believe that the Resurrection of Christ is a historical event.

I will moreover be covering the most recurrent objections raised to oppose these facts. I will make an effort to incorporate as many of these objections as systematically as possible in order to bring about a rational explanation. It is critical, reader, to keep all possibilities open as you read this article for yourself. Determining the truthfulness of a highly controversial or exclusive event requires proper weighing of the evidences that are presented. It is imperative that one laid aside all preconceived prejudices and biases in order to reach a valid conclusion; otherwise, it is a futile moment investigating this matter. It is also unlawful judgment when one adds or removes evidence that may violate his personal worldview. 

There is a pending clarification I must mention before preceding onto my body of points. I am not assuming or arguing from the belief that the Bible is inspired or that the New Testament is reliable. I am simply taking some data that has early and reliable historical value and that has been accepted by critics (i.e. atheists and agnostics) and working from them to expound on why I believe the Resurrection of Christ is an event that actually happened. I hope you will keep all points of view open as we set out to investigate whether there is enough convincing evidence for Jesus rising from the dead. I am thankful you have read this far. Furthermore I hope this work will help in answering any objections or questions you have or had before in the past.



Evidence #1




Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by Roman Authorities

The death of Jesus of Nazareth by crucifixion, as described in all four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) is a much better attested event by ancient sources than almost any other ancient historical religious leader.

Before we proceed to discuss these ancient sources, it is necessary to clear up some issues that may cloud this discussion. One is the assertion that Jesus never existed. There, however, is too much evidence against that to be true primarily from sources that clearly are not proponents of Christianity. Mainly someone claiming there is no evidence for Jesus of Nazareth’s existence or even death would have to see all possibilities in order to make such a radical claim. We will cover the sources outside the New Testament first before mentioning the New Testament. The earliest sources outside the NT are, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna. These sources are known as the Apostolic is Fathers. They are men who either personally knew the apostles or knew others who firsthand knew the apostles. We’ll tackle these sources and then advance to additional sources.

Clement of Rome is known as the very first Apostolic Father of the Early Christian Church. He is believed, according to Tertullian, to have been personally ordained by the Apostle Peter himself and was the first to write an epistle to the church at the ancient city of Corinth called 1 Clement. He makes several references to Jesus’ teachings in his epistles in making references to the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) in reference to Gary Habermas’ book (the historical Jesus: ancient evidence for the life of Christ). He is regarded as the earliest source outside the NT. 

Ignatius of Antioch is believed to have written around A.D. 110 and quoted Luke 24:39 where Jesus says, “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." (Gary Habermas’ book the historical Jesus: ancient evidence for the life of Christ).

Polycarp of Smyrna composed his Epistle to the Philippians and makes mention of the sayings of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels. Polycarp wrote shortly after Ignatius of Antioch and was also martyred.

The following writers are from the 1st and 2nd centuries who have briefly mentioned Jesus in their writings: Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion, and Julius Africanus. These writers are by and large anti-Christian sources with the possible exception of Josephus. I will briefly break down these authors one by one.

Flavius Josephus was a first century Jewish historian who lived during the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans. He makes a couple of references to Jesus in his work Antiquities of the Jews. The following is a quote from his work Antiquities of the Jews: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous and many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not desert his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” This is from an Arabic manuscript that has been dated to the tenth century that contains more authentic material on Jesus than the standard text that has been known to contain Christian interpolation. A few observations can be made to ensure that this was not a Christian interpolation.

First, Jesus is referred to as a “wise man”. Jesus was never ascribed to being a mere wise man by his disciples or by anyone who knew him personally. His disciples on numerous occasions looked to him as a Deity. The last sentence is not likely to be an interpolation because of the author’s tendency to place him as a third party simply reporting an event rather than speaking of it as if he were a believer in Christ. Overall, Josephus’ works are considered as historically authentic by the vast majority of scholars despite some variations that are present in the latest manuscript copies.

Pliny the Younger was an imperial magistrate, under the Emperor Trajan, who was born in late 1st century and died in 112 AD. His Epistulae or “Letters” also contains a reference to the Early Christians worshiping Christ as a deity instead of the Emperor. He writes a letter to the Emperor Trajan for instruction on how to deal with them. The Emperor advised Pliny the Younger to not arrest or exercise any form of hostile force against them. The Christians were to be executed if they were found to be guilty of a crime worthy of capital punishment; otherwise they were to be left alone to live quiet lives. This source undoubtedly implies a strong anti-Christian influence that was surmounting in the area where Pliny the Younger was in charge.

Cornelius Tacitus was a senator and historian for the Roman Empire during the reigns of the following emperors: Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero. He wrote two extensive works during his time as a historian, which are the Annals and the Histories. In the Book 15 of the Annals, Tacitus makes a mention of Christ in writing his name in Latin rather than Greek (Christus). It is a response to Nero blaming the Christians for the fire that nearly destroyed the entire city of Rome. The following quote briefly describes the action of Nero against the Christians and the origin of where Christianity came from: “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome…” Very few scholars have questioned the authenticity of this early source to Jesus being that is once again described as an anti-Christian source. The fact that Tacitus writes from a pagan and derisive viewpoint on these people shows why this would be somewhat authentic to consider as a noteworthy source for Christ in the 1st century. Even so, if it were a myth or a legend that Jesus was believed to have been a historical figure, then these secular sources surely would have snuffed it out right from the beginning.

Mara bar Sarapion was a Syrian Stoic who wrote a letter to his son while in prison from the Romans. His letter mentions Jesus in the following quote: “Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? “Some scholars believe this is referring to the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. 

Julius Africanus writes concerning the crucifixion of Jesus around A.D. 221 and makes a reference to Thallus – a historian who is somewhat obscure – in the following statement: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun.” 

The Gospel narratives are the primary sources into Jesus’ existence and his life. All write from an eyewitness perspective or were guided by an eyewitness to Jesus’ life and ministry. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all unanimous, together with other secular sources I just cited, that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

However, are we able to determine the exact date and time when Jesus was crucified? In regards to the details surrounding Jesus’ death, these secular sources are not interested in making elaborate and detailed accounts of Jesus’ execution but just mention him briefly in the course of history. The biographies, however, are more reliable to consult as to when we can determine when Jesus was crucified because they contain more details into the event. 

One last secular source that nearly has identical information on when Jesus was crucified is from the Jewish Babylonian Talmud in the following quotation: “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged…” Being that many Jewish leaders were hostile against Jesus in his day, it is unlikely that Jesus’ crucifixion was an invention by the disciples and much less by his enemies.

All the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) affirm that Jesus was crucified on the “eve” of the Passover which means the day before. This would have been before the Sabbath, which is on a Saturday and not Sunday. Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane following his betrayal by Judas Iscariot, which led to his being taken away to Pilate. He was beaten severely throughout the night with no rest until the following morning when he was brought before Pilate to be tried. He was declared guilty by the Jewish leaders for “making himself a king”. Pilate condemns him to be whipped by Roman soldiers and then to be crucified. 

The most information on when Jesus was indeed crucified. All of the Gospels, once again, affirm that Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Passover. Now that would mean the day before the actual Passover (Christmas Eve is the day before Christmas) would be the eve of the Passover. The Jewish people celebrate the Passover on the first month of the Jewish calendar, which would be the month Nissan. The equivalent month for the Gregorian calendar that we use would be the month April in the spring. The Passover is also called “The Feast of Unleavened Bread”. There is an interesting Old Testament parallel between the activities on the eve of the Passover with Jesus being put to death on the same day. In Jewish custom, it was required that an unblemished lamb is sacrificed and its remains be disposed of that very evening before the Passover. The same occurrence happened with Jesus in that he was crucified and was buried – I would elaborate on this later – by Joseph of Arimathea. As of now, we can reasonably confirm that Jesus was crucified under the rule of Pontius Pilate on Friday, 14 Nissan in A.D. 30. 

Mark, in his gospel, makes an interesting note on the hour frame when Jesus was crucified up to the hour he was dead. He says, “It was the third hour when they crucified him.” The third hour would indicate the third hour from the time the sun came up in the morning. If a normal sunrise arrives at normally 6:00 am, then Jesus was crucified around nine in the morning. Mark does not stop there however. He mentions a darkness surrounding the area in the following words; “At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour.” Jesus died in the ninth hour (Mark 15:37) which would have been 3 p.m. on Friday, Nissan 14, 30 A.D.

Objection #1

 
We can’t trust those outside secular sources because they are not contemporaries of Jesus and were written at a much later time. 



While it is true that Josephus was born 7 years after Jesus’ crucifixion, the time gap between the events and his recordings of those events is much less than a century. In essence, he is not composing a biography of himself or anyone else but is writing a history of the Jewish people from the time of Abraham up through the destruction of Jerusalem. An unreliable historical document making mention of Jesus in the 5th century would be an example because that would grant legendary corruption enough time to creep into the documents. Josephus, on the other hand, writes The Antiquities of the Jews on the last year Emperor Domitian reigns (A.D. 96), which is only less than 7 decades after the events themselves. In addition to that, Josephus makes mention of several other Biblical figures (John the Baptist, Caiaphas the High Priest, Pontius Pilate, and James the Just) and contains numerous other historical accuracies. It would be unnecessary to deem him unreliable to record certain events for which he himself was not an eyewitness of but can record them accurately. 



Nearly all of the secular sources are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus but they do give accurate portraits of how Jesus was perceived in his day (wise man, miracle worker, healer, teacher, and crucified) and do not conflict with the gospels who have the earliest information on Jesus and his life. It is noteworthy for me to make a distinction between a historical work and an ancient biography. In reference to the outside secular works, these authors are not purposefully trying to elaborate too much on Jesus’ life or death due to a lack of interest. One must remember that people most commonly mentioned in historical works are rulers, senators, emperors, and governors. In essence people in a position of power are more likely to be recognized and mentioned than a typical religious leader as Jesus was. They make a mention of him only for the sake of clarifying the origin of where Christianity came from. 

Biographies, however, are concerned with details of a person’s life. That’s why it is imperative for an eyewitness or someone guided by an eyewitness to be the one to write a biography of a person’s life due to the accuracy of the report that is demanded. A modern example might help explain this.

We have a man named John. He has three friends who have known him his entire life for over 30 years. He dies at the age of 40 for some unknown cause. His best friend James decides to write a book covering details of John’s life. He chooses certain details to include but does not mention everything that happened. This would go back to the discretion and integrity of the writer. Now fast forward to three centuries later, and someone who never even knew John personally decides to write a book about him. What are the chances of this person’s account of John’s life measuring up as accurate as James, who was John’s best friend? It is highly unlikely. 

Furthermore, there are plenty of historians who are able to write up accounts of places and people despite not being contemporaries to the events themselves. Even still, being a contemporary can mean one or two things.

If being a contemporary means one lived in the same century then yes some of these secular sources are contemporaries of Jesus. If contemporary means the same lifetime then we can say they are not contemporaries. Once again, there is a huge difference between writing a history of a people in a certain city and making brief references to certain individuals as opposed to writing detailed accounts of their lives (personal and political). 
Furthermore, there is very little dispute of Jesus existence or even that he was crucified due to sources that clearly had an anti-Christian agenda and had no reason to make up a story. Even the Jesus Seminar founder John Dominic Crossan says that the crucifixion of Jesus is as attest-able as any other event in ancient history.



Objection #2


Jesus did not really die on the cross; he simply passed out and was resuscitated later.


Roman crucifixion was the most brutal way for a criminal to be executed. The chances of survival were extremely slim to nearly impossible. Josephus mentions one record of mentioning someone not dying on the cross when he had three friends who were crucified but then were removed (at his request) and given immediate medical attention. The first two died within hours of treatment and the third one died a few days later. Given the nature of crucifixion would make it nearly impossible for someone to survive, even under the best circumstances. Many medical experts have examined the account of Jesus being crucified and many have concluded that Jesus died through heart rupture and cardio shock. The brutality of the crucifixion was so extreme that the Roman writer Cicero described it as “being laid bare” in reference to the victim’s intestines (http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_14750495-the-history-pathology-crucifixion.htm).

Second, even if Jesus did survive his own crucifixion, the odds of him removing the stone that sealed the tomb he was buried in (which weighed several hundred pounds requiring several men to remove it), getting past the Roman guards (Failure of mission meant death on the Roman soldiers), and coming to his disciples in his physical faint state would never convince his disciples of him rising from the dead. It would have been more urgent to give Jesus medical treatment rather than publicize that Jesus had risen from the dead but he’s wounded right now. 

The evidence is there in black and white.

This hypothesis is even hardly used anymore by scholars to consider the possibilities of Jesus’ death of crucifixion. No serious scholar of reputable academic background considers this theory worth looking at. Most would say it is a statement made on blind faith or one based off a lack of education. Nonetheless the Roman soldiers faced death themselves if they were to let a criminal come off the cross while still alive.