The Resurrection of Jesus is a Real Historical Fact

Here is a PDF of this handout

According to those writers closest to the events, Jesus died on a Roman cross and came back to life three days later.  There are two main categories of doubts that people commonly have about the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus. 

They are 1.) doubts about the written accounts, and 2.) doubts about the witnesses/writers themselves.

I. Doubts About the Written Accounts:  “The Bible is an Unreliable Record of What the Original Witnesses Saw Concerning the Resurrection”

“The biblical accounts of his resurrection are legend not historical accounts.”

·         They are not written in the style of legends.  Read: Luke 1:1-4.  They claim to be historical accounts based on their own observations and/or well-researched compilations of eye-witness testimonies.  If they are not true, they would have to be intentional lies (see below for that option).  They were clearly not intended to be read as legends.

·         They were written too soon after the events to be legend.  There is wide agreement that I Corinthians was written about 55 AD, about 22 years after the death of Jesus (33 AD).  Read: I Corinthians 15:3-8.  In it Paul claims there were over 500 people that saw Jesus risen from the dead.  It would be really hard for him to get away with this just 22 years after the events, unless it happened.

“The biblical accounts were tampered with or fabricated”

·         As the original manuscripts were copied, errors were made so that small variations emerged between the copies.  These small variations in the copies show us that there was never a time when all the manuscripts were in the hands of one group and therefore they could not have been altered without us knowing.

·         There is more manuscript evidence for the accuracy of the New Testament than any other document of antiquity. 

Author/Book	Date Written	Earliest Copies Found	Time Gap	No. of Copies	Consistency Between Copies
Homer, Iliad	800 b.c.	----	----	643	95%
Plato	400 b.c.	c. a.d. 900	c. 1,300 yrs	7	----
Caesar, Gallic Wars	100–44 b.c.	c. a.d. 900	c. 1,000 yrs	10	----
Livy, History of Rome	59 b.c.-a.d.17	4th cent. (partial) mostly 10th cent.	c. 400 yrs c. 1,000 yrs	1 partial 19 copies	----
Tacitus, Annals	a.d. 100	c. a.d. 1100	c. 1,000 yrs	20	----
Pliny Secundus, Natural History	a.d. 61–113	c. 850	c. 750 yrs	7	----
New Testament	a.d. 50–100	c. 114 (fragment) c. 200 (books) c. 250 (most of N.T.) c. 325 (complete N.T.)	±50 yrs 100 yrs 150 yrs 225 yrs	5366	99+%

·         Through the science of textual criticism this large volume of copies can be compared so that the original manuscripts can be determined with over 99% certainty.

·         In cases where a clear decision between differences in manuscripts, these differences do not affect any doctrine.  Most modern Bibles actually tell you where these differences can’t be reconciled and they give the alternate reading in the margins.

·         Even if all the manuscripts were lost we would be able to reconstruct the New Testament from the quotations made by church letters, sermons, and documents of the first couple of centuries of the church.

“I heard that Constantine used a forth century church council to choose a bias set of books  for inclusion in the New Testament”

Actually, the canon (ie. the set of books that were considered Scripture) was recognized long before Constantine’s time:

Paul Claimed that his Writings had the Authority of God

·         If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.  [1 Corinthians 14:37]

·         And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.  [1 Thessalonians 2:13]

Paul Called Luke’s Gospel Scripture

·         And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.  [Luke 10:7]

·         For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."  [1 Timothy 5:18]

Peter Called Paul’s Letters Scripture

·         And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.  [2 Peter 3:15-16]

Polycarp, 100 AD

·         A disciple of the Apostle John cites from 74% of the NT books in a letter.

Ignatius, 110 AD

·         In a letter cites from 44% of the NT books

Justin Martyr, 160 AD

·         Cites from 63% of the NT books

Irenaeus, 170 AD

·         Cites from 85% of the NT books and says, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are four” Against Heresies, Chapter 3.11.8

Tertullian, 190 AD

·         Cites from 81% of the NT books

Origen, 240 AD

·         Cites from 100% of the NT

Athanasius, 367 AD

·         Writes “Easter Letter” in 367 A.D and names the same 27 books that are in today’s New Testament.

The Church Councils of the Forth Century Officially Affirmed what Believers Already Knew

·         393 AD, Synod of Hippo - affirmed that the 27 books of our NT were the only books of apostolic origin and were to be accepted as Scripture.

·         397, AD, Council of Carthage - affirmed our current N.T. canon. Forbid any from claiming any other writing as Scripture.

What was the Council’s Criteria for Determining Which Books to Include?

1.) Apostolic Authorship

·         Was it written by an apostle or one closely acquainted with an apostle?

o    Apostles: Matthew, John, 13 Paul’s epistles, 1 & 2 Peter, 1-3 John, Revelation

o    Authority by association with an Apostle: Luke-Acts, Mark, James, Jude

o    Rejected: Epistle of Clement for lack of claim to divine authority, Didache for lack of clear authorship

2.) Antiquity - When was it written?

·         For a writing to be the work of an Apostle or of someone closely associated with an Apostle it must belong to the first century. 

·         Writings of later date, whatever their merit, could not be included among the canonical books.

·         Rejected: Gnostic Gospels, etc. 

3.) Universal Use

·         Was the book widely accepted by the Church?

·         The writings must be accepted universally.

·         They often began with merely local acceptance, such as epistles to the churches, but gained widespread recognition. 

·         If it wasn’t good enough to be read next to the OT in a church service context, it cannot be part of the canon. 

4.) Self-Authenticating

·         Does it have a self-authenticating nature?

·         There must be evidence of activity of the Holy Spirit contained within the context of the writings.

·         Had the book evidenced power in the lives of believers?

5.) Non-Contradiction

·         Did it contradict known Scripture?  Consistent with OT?  Consistent with Paul?

·         Rejected for Incompatibility (heretical positions)—Apocryphal gospels

What About the Gospel of Thomas?

·         Earliest Possible Date of about 150 AD, so it can’t be written by Thomas.  The same is true of Gnostic Gospels attributed to Mary and Judas.  They were also written after 150 AD, so they cannot be written by Mary or Judas.

·         Contains bizarre material:

o    Verse 114: Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."  Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

·         Origen (240 AD):  “I know a certain gospel which is called the ‘Gospel according to Thomas’ and a ‘Gospel according to Matthias,’ and many others have we read – lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine they possess some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the church has recognized, which is that only the four gospels should be accepted.”  (from a homily on Luke 1:1)

·         So in conclusion, what can be said to the charge that, “the Bible is just a biased collection of the accounts of Jesus life that the church preferred.”

·         Every historical record comes from someone with a particular set of beliefs that influence them.  Everyone has a bias.  The question is whether what they wrote is true.

·         Only books written in the first century were considered.  Other books were rejected because they were written 150 AD or later under false names.  Only accounts written in the first century by apostles or close associates of the apostles were included.  These included books were held to be Scripture long before the forth century councils. 

We have what those nearest to the events recorded – they intended that their record be taken as historical.

II.  Doubts About the Witnesses/Writers of the Accounts:  “We Can’t Trust as Historically Reliable What the Biblical Writers Saw and Recorded.”

“The Gospel writers intentionally deceived their readers.  They lied about what they saw.”

·         If they were going to make up the events of the resurrection, they would certainly not have made women the first witnesses.  It’s counterproductive.  In that day a woman’s testimony was not even admissible in court.  The writers would not have recorded that women were the first to see the risen Jesus unless that is what actually happened.

·         They don’t seem like liars.  Take the apostle John for instance.  He is very emphatic that Jesus actually died (John 19:35) and came back to physical life three days later (John 21:24).  Later in First, Second, and Third John he reveals his deep pastoral love for the people led (for example: II John 1-5).  Then this same man wrote Revelation and told them that they must be faithful to Jesus, even if it meant they would be killed, and that Jesus would raise them from the dead (for example: Revelation 2:10-11).  You only have two choices with John, either he is one of the most evil people who ever lived or he really saw Jesus risen from the dead.

·         Most of the apostles (John is an exception) were all brutally killed because they would not relent in proclaiming that Jesus was raised from the dead.  People commonly die for lies that they think are true.  People don’t die for what they know is a lie.  The apostles knew for sure whether Jesus was really raised from the dead or not.  They were unwilling to recant their story because it was true and the promise of resurrection made them willing to die.  As Blaise Pascal said, “I believe those witnesses that get their throats cut”.

“The disciples went to the wrong tomb or someone just stole Jesus body and the disciples took the empty tomb to be proof of Jesus’ resurrection”

·         The empty tomb is not all that is claimed by the biblical writer, they say that many saw him physically alive again.

·         Peter, about 50 days after the resurrection, preached boldly about the physical resurrection of Jesus in the same city he was buried in (Acts 2) and thousands believed. The enemies of Christianity (and there were many) would have produced the rotting corpse of Jesus to refute the claims of the disciples if they could have.

“Lots of people have had visions of someone they loved who had died.  The writers just meant that they had seen visions of Jesus or that he was still alive in some spiritual sense, not that he came back to physical life.”

·         They had language for that kind of thing: “I saw his angel” or “I saw his spirit” (Luke 24:37).  They would not have said “he has been raised from the dead”.

“The disciples, overcome with grief and wanting so badly for Jesus to be alive, had visions or hallucinations that he was alive again.”

·         They were not looking for him to be raised.  They were disbelieving and did not expect the resurrection. 

·         They knew about stuff like visions and hallucinations happening too and did not trust their eyes.  For some of them it was only after the touched him and saw him eat that they would believe he was raised from the dead (Luke 24:38, John 20:25).

·         There is actually no evidence that mass hallucination (such as would have to occurred in Acts 1, Luke 24, and I Corinthians 15:6) have ever occurred in history.

“Jesus never really died, he just looked dead on the cross and then later was revived and appeared to many, appearing as if he was raised from the dead.”

·         Romans soldiers knew how to kill people.

·         If this did happen, Jesus would hardly have been able to convince people that he had victoriously conquered death three days after the whipping, beating, and crucifixion.

“People back then just believed in resurrections and would not have demanded a lot of proof like we do, so they would have been more easily misled.”

·         No, they didn’t believe in resurrections.

·         The Jews that believed in the resurrection (not the Sadducees), believe in a resurrection of all people at once with the restoration of the entire physical world.  They did not believe in individuals being resurrected.

·         The Greco-Roman world did not believe in the resurrection of the body.  They did not believe it was possible or even desirable because of their preference of the spiritual over the physical.

·         They would have had no easier time believing it, nor were they somehow more likely to believe what they were told than we are.  It is quite arrogant to believe that first century people were somehow less intelligent or more gullible than modern people are.  History reveals many example of people from antiquity that were far more intelligent than we are.

The testimony of those closest to the event appear trustworthy and there is no historical reason to discount them. 

And we already saw that we have reliable records of what they wrote, records they intended to be taken as historical.  Therefore, the physical resurrection of Jesus is an established fact as much as any historical fact can be expected to be.  The resurrection of Jesus was a real historical event and proves the truth of Jesus’ message.

Here is a PDF of this handout.