The Resurrection: A Critical Perspective

The resurrection of Jesus is a central tenet of Christianity. However, when examined critically, the evidence for this extraordinary claim is problematic. This page will explore issues with the resurrection accounts, naturalistic explanations, and problems with Habermas' minimal facts approach.

Issues with Resurrection Evidence

• No contemporary accounts - earliest gospels written decades after events:
  • Mark, the earliest gospel, is dated to around 70 CE, about 40 years after Jesus' death (Ehrman, 2004)
  • Matthew and Luke are dated to 80-90 CE, based on their use of Mark as a source (Brown, 1997)
  • John, the latest gospel, is dated to 90-110 CE, reflecting more developed Christology (Köstenberger, 2009)
• Contradictions between gospel accounts on key details:
  • Number of women at the tomb: One in John 20:1, two in Matthew 28:1, three in Mark 16:1, or more in Luke 24:10
  • What the women saw: One young man in Mark 16:5, two men in Luke 24:4, two angels in John 20:12, or an angel of the Lord in Matthew 28:2-5
  • Order of Jesus' appearances: Differs in each gospel and in 1 Corinthians 15 (e.g., to Mary Magdalene first in John, to the disciples in Galilee first in Matthew)
• No Roman or Jewish records mentioning Jesus' resurrection:
  • Absence in works of contemporary historians like Philo of Alexandria (25 BCE - 50 CE), who wrote extensively on Jewish philosophy and history
  • No mention in Roman records despite claimed earthquakes and darkness at crucifixion (Matthew 27:51-53)
• Lack of physical evidence or archaeological support:
  • No archaeological evidence of Jesus' tomb, despite claims of its location (e.g., Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Garden Tomb)
  • No preserved artifacts related to the resurrection (e.g., burial shroud, excluding the contested Turin Shroud)
• Reliance on testimony of claimed eyewitnesses, not direct evidence:
  • Paul's account in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is secondhand, as he was not present at the events
  • Gospel authors are anonymous and not proven to be eyewitnesses (e.g., Luke 1:1-4 admits to compiling others' accounts)

Naturalistic Explanations

• Hallucination hypothesis - grief-stricken followers had visions:
  • Supported by modern understanding of grief-induced hallucinations (Sacks, 2012)
  • Explains individual and group visions (1 Corinthians 15:6)
  • Consistent with research on bereavement hallucinations, occurring in up to 60% of bereaved individuals (Castelnovo et al., 2015)
  • Mass hallucinations documented in other contexts, e.g., Marian apparitions (Nickell, 1993)
• Legend hypothesis - story grew and evolved over time:
  • Explains increasing elaboration from Mark to later gospels (e.g., no post-resurrection appearances in earliest manuscripts of Mark)
  • Consistent with known legend formation in other religions (e.g., Buddha's miraculous birth stories developed over centuries)
  • Supported by textual analysis showing progressive embellishment (Ehrman, 2016)
  • Parallels development of other ancient hero myths (Rank, 1909)
• Mistaken identity - followers confused someone else for Jesus:
  • Supported by Luke 24:16 where disciples don't recognize Jesus
  • Explains Paul's "vision" on Damascus road (Acts 9:3-9)
  • Consistent with psychological studies on eyewitness misidentification (Loftus, 1996)
  • Similar to cases of misidentified "returned" soldiers after wars (Roach, 2005)
• Conspiracy hypothesis - disciples stole body and lied:
  • Mentioned as a concern in Matthew 27:62-66
  • Explains empty tomb without supernatural intervention
  • Precedented by other religious tomb thefts, e.g., Corpus Hermeticum (Copenhaver, 1992)
  • Consistent with sociological studies on the formation of new religious movements (Stark, 1996)
• Swoon hypothesis - Jesus survived crucifixion and recovered:
  • Supported by short time on cross (Mark 15:44)
  • Explains post-crucifixion appearances
  • Medical literature documents rare cases of survival after crucifixion (Maslen & Mitchell, 2006)
  • Similar to documented cases of mistaken death pronouncements in modern times (Lazarus phenomenon)

Problems with Habermas' Minimal Facts

Gary Habermas claims these "minimal facts" are widely accepted:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Disciples believed Jesus rose and appeared to them
3. Paul converted suddenly
4. James (Jesus' skeptical brother) converted suddenly
5. The tomb was empty

Issues with this approach:

• Facts 2-5 rely solely on biblical accounts, not independent sources:
  • No contemporary non-Christian sources confirm these claims
  • Earliest non-Christian mention (Josephus) is disputed and dated to 93-94 CE
  • Tacitus (116 CE) only mentions Jesus' execution, not resurrection (Annals 15.44)
  • Pliny the Younger (112 CE) only describes Christian worship practices, not historical claims (Letters 10.96-97)
• Sudden conversions can have psychological explanations:
  • Paul's conversion resembles other sudden religious experiences, such as those documented by William James in "The Varieties of Religious Experience" (1902)
  • James' conversion lacks detailed historical evidence beyond brief mentions in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 15:7
  • Studies show that sudden conversions often occur during times of stress or life transitions (Rambo, 1993)
• Empty tomb is not universally accepted by scholars:
  • Not mentioned in earliest Christian writings (Paul's letters, which date to 50-60 CE)
  • Empty tomb narrative evolves in later gospels: absent in Mark's original ending (16:1-8), elaborated in Matthew, Luke, and John
  • Jewish polemic in Matthew 28:11-15 suggests competing explanations for the empty tomb existed
  • Scholars like Gerd Lüdemann and John Dominic Crossan argue the empty tomb is a later legendary development
• These facts, even if true, don't necessitate a supernatural resurrection:
  • Consistent with naturalistic explanations listed above (e.g., hallucination, legend, mistaken identity)
  • Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Sagan's standard)
  • Similar miraculous claims in other religions (e.g., Buddha's resurrection in the Lotus Sutra) are not widely accepted by scholars
  • Historical method is limited in its ability to confirm supernatural events (Ehrman, 2014)
• Habermas' method has been criticized for:
  • Selection bias in determining what counts as a "fact" (Carrier, 2005)
  • Overestimating scholarly consensus on these points (Avalos, 2007)
  • Failing to account for the interdependence of these "facts" in the narrative (Allison, 2005)
  • Not adequately addressing alternative explanations that account for the same data (Martin, 2005)