did jesus rise from the dead_ — religiousyetsane.blogspot

3/27/2014 Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? — religiousyetsane.blogspot.com

https://www.readability.com/articles/ulhyrqgj 1/39

religiousyetsane.blogspot.com

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?

by Rational Gaze • March 27, 2014 • 78 min read • original

The main question that is central to truth or falsity of Christianity is: did Jesus rise from

the dead? The truth of Christianity literally stands or falls on this, as the apostle Paul so

eloquently put it:

“If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ

has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are

then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised

Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the

dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been

raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep

in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be

pitied. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have

fallen asleep.”[1]

Thus, if Jesus rose from the dead, then Christian theism is true, but if He did not, then

Christianity is false, and we have been following it in vain. Now, some might say, but belief

in Jesus’ resurrection isn’t based on evidence, we just take it on faith! This is simply based

on a false definition of faith. There most certainly IS evidence that we can survey to

determine whether or not Jesus really rose from the dead or not.

Before continuing on to the defence of the resurrection hypothesis, we must first deal

with two philosophical issues related to the methodology and practice of history: the

problem of historical knowledge and the problem of miracles. Is historical knowledge

possible, and what counts as historical knowledge? Can the historian identify miracles as

historical events, or rather; can miracle events ever be considered historical? This is the

first phase of defending the resurrection, philosophical arguments. Now I have no idea

what the average person’s understanding of the theory, methodology and practice is. Their

knowledge of History itself may be exceptionally bad, but their knowledge of the philosophy

of History is something I will not even pretend to know. If public knowledge of History is

anything to go by, then I expect the answer to be: close to nil. This may seem like an

abstract subject, yet it is not just important to the question of Jesus’ resurrection, but the

subject of History as a whole. What actually counts as historical knowledge has been hotly

contested.

http://religiousyetsane.blogspot.com/2011/09/did-jesus-rise-from-dead.html




This is what philosopher William Lane Craig refers to as the problem of historical

knowledge:

“This, however, brings us face-to-face with the problem of historical knowledge; that is to

say, how is it possible to learn anything about the human past with any degree of

assurance? On the popular level, this expresses itself in the attitude that history is

uncertain and irrelevant. It has been said that history is a series of lies that everyone has

decided to agree on. On the scholarly level, the problem finds expression in the outlook of

historical relativism, which denies the objectivity of historical facts.”[2]

New Testament scholar, Michael R. Licona provides the following description:

“To various degrees, postmodern historians question whether it is even possible to know

and describe the past. This is in contrast to realist historians, who maintain that reality

exists independently of our knowledge of it and our scientific statements and theories

refer to this independent reality.”[3]

There are two main post-modernist views, what I will call the narrative view and what I

will call the radical view. The narrative view is held by those like Hayden White, who

maintains that historians write narratives that are to be assessed purely on literary and

aesthetic ground. The radical view is held by those like Keith Jenkins, who deny that there

is actually any narrative-dependent reality, and that facts do not exist independently of the

historian. Thus, we are presented with historical relativism, claiming that all we can know

are historical reconstructions and that no historical reconstructions can be said to be

superior to others.

Whether consciously or not, this is a view that largely pervades the new atheists. For

example, when somebody claims that Christianity was plagiarised from pagan religions, or

that the doctrine of the Incarnation was invented in the 4th century by a group of Bishops

at the behest of a Roman Emperor, they are telling patent falsehoods that stand in contrast

to known facts about the past. This historic revisionism is only permissible if historical

relativism is true, and is one reason why historic relativism is an invalid approach to

history. To illustrate this point further, imagine if the Nazis had won World War II. The

belief that Jews were responsible for the downfall of Germany at the end of World War I

would no doubt have been written into the history books as if it were actually true, and

undoubtedly anybody who said otherwise would have been executed and their work

destroyed. If this had been so, would this have made their version of history correct? The

answer is, of course, a resounding no.

Furthermore, there is no version of history that could ever be produced where World War

II never happened. Thus, the notion that, somehow, we are incapable of knowing anything

about the past is completely and absolutely false. This completely destroys hardcore anti-

realist models of historiography, but what about less extreme views? For example, it could

be argued that whilst certain things can be known about the past, a great deal is not known,

and whilst historians cannot produce whatever historical narratives they like, there is still

a great variety of possible narratives that are all on equal footing. Following in this line of



argumentation is that quaint though ludicrous notion that history is an art, and not a

science. Whereas the scientist analyses lab data obtained by observing experiments, the

historian does not have the past events on hand to directly witness, and so is forced to

produce a literary narrative, rather than say a historical hypothesis. Furthermore, it is

argued that a historian, no matter how objective they aim to be, is always being affected by

their unconscious cultural biases, and so whatever narratives they produce will be affected

by these hidden biases.

This view is, I think, more valid, in the sense it is a position that actually merits a

response, however is also incorrect. As the historian, like the scientist, still has data to

analyse. The fields of archaeology and textual criticism are equally concerned with evidence

as are the fields of geology and evolutionary biology, and all fields are as equally removed

from the events they seek to explain. The scientists has rocks and fossils, the historian

has ruins and manuscripts. Obviously, interpretation of the evidence is involved, but we

are not permitted to run with it in whatever direction we like. Furthermore, whilst a

historian is affected by their personal biases, it for this very reason that there exists peer

review. In history, evidence is collected and analysed, and a hypothesis to explain these

facts is then offered. The question then is then, how do we determine if a historical

hypothesis is true? Obviously, we have no means of directly accessing the past, so what

methods do we use in lieu of time travel?

Perhaps the most satisfactory criteria I have read comes from historian C. Behan

McCullagh[4]:

1) The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet

other statements describing present, observable data.

2) The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope than its rivals. That is, it implies a

greater variety of observational statements.

3) The hypothesis must have greater explanatory power than its rivals. That is, it must

make the observational statements it implies more probable.

4) The hypothesis must be more plausible than its rivals. That is, it must be implied by a

greater number of accepted truths than any other, and more strongly than any other

whereas its negation must be implied by fewer beliefs than any other, and less strongly

than any other.

5) The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the

same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past that are not

already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.

6) It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than its rivals. That is, when

conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other

statements that are believed to be false.

7) It must exceed its rivals in characteristics 2 to 6 to the degree that there is little chance

of a rival hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.

Using these principles, we can than assess which hypothesis is the best explanation of the



facts we are trying to explain. The hypothesis that meets all criteria can be said to be the

most probably true. What then of miracle claims? How do they fit into the evidentiary

scheme of things in the field of History? I would think that miracles claims, like any other

claims, would need to be analysed, and evidence for or against the claim would need to be

accumulated and scrutinised before any sort of judgement could be made. Yet, there are

those who assert otherwise.

There are a variety of arguments against identifying events as miracles, each of them so

incredibly poor that it strains credulity to imagine that someone actually think them to be

valid arguments. Perhaps the most common objection is the claim that “extraordinary

claims require extraordinary evidence.” This statement is as useless as it is banal,

incoherent and self-refuting. For what is meant by “extraordinary claims” and

“extraordinary evidence?” If an extraordinary claim is any claim that we do not yet have

evidence for, then this applies to every unproven hypothesis. If it instead refers to claims

that we personally find extraordinary and improbable, then it is simply nothing more than

personal incredulity, and so has no place in conducting historical reasoning. What then of

“extraordinary evidence?” In what sense can evidence be said to be “extraordinary?” If it

refers to absolute proof, then this singlehandedly destroys every human enterprise from

history to science, as it then becomes impossible to know pretty much anything at all. If it

simply refers to evidence necessary to establish a hypothesis as the best explanation, then

it simply becomes “claims requires evidence,” which nobody would dispute.

In reality, this is nothing more than a slogan proffered in lieu of a good rival hypothesis.

Indeed, no matter how much evidence is presented, critics and sceptics can simply

complain that, somehow, it just isn’t “extraordinary” enough. ECREE is not a logical

principal at all but a subjective shibboleth that Carl Sagan pulled out of his backside.

ECREE compels one to make a snap-judgment about the veracity of a claim before looking

at the evidence and introduces bias such that an objective analysis of the data becomes

difficult if not impossible. In essence, it is therefore nothing more than an argument from

personal incredulity. All ECREE does is create a framework to hide the moving of the

goalposts - ECREE is not a means of evaluating evidence; it is a means of avoiding evidence

that one does not like. Ironically enough, proponents of ECREE are often forced to rely on

extraordinary claims themselves. For example, there are those who assert that Jesus could

have been a space alien, or that 500+ people all suffered from identical audio-visual and

sensory hallucinations at the same time, rather than seriously entertain the resurrection

hypothesis.

Fortunately, not all critics and sceptic are this monumentally stupid. There exist other

complaints against identifying miracles as historic events. Perhaps the prime example,

offered by thinkers such as David Hume and Benedict de Spinoza, is that miracles are

“violations of nature” and as such are impossible. Furthermore, even if absolute proof

could be given of a particular miracle claim, then it could still not be identified as a



miracle, due to the proof of the regularity of nature. This is certainly a more plausible

objection, but one that has, unfortunately for sceptics, been long since refuted. The most

obvious point of contention being, the laws of nature are descriptive, not proscriptive. The

law of gravity does not cause objects to be attracted to one other proportionally to their

mass. The real reason why the universe behaves in the way it does is still entirely a

mystery, and is taken by many as evidence of the divine. Furthermore, if we assume the

existence of God, as Spinoza and Hume did, then what reason do we have to suppose that

God is incapable of interfering in the universe that He Himself made? The answer, it

seems, is: none. As contemporaries of Hume and Spinoza argued, the laws of nature merely

describe how the universe behaves in the absence of divine interference, in the same way

the law of motion describes the movement of a bouncing ball if it were not interrupted by,

say, a human being catching it before it stopped bouncing.

Hume also offered four more arguments against miracles. Hume argued that no miracle

claim has ever been attested to by a sufficient number of educated, honest men of such

social standing that they would stand a great deal to lose by lying, that people crave

miraculous stories and are gullible enough to believe any absurd story, that miracles have

only been reported to occur amongst “barbarous” peoples, and that miracles are said to

occur in all religions, thus effectively cancelling each other out. It does not take a genius to

realise that such arguments are not arguments at all. For starters, his first claim is simply

a bare assertion coupled with circular reasoning, in that he assumes that which he seeks to

prove. His second claim is simply a red herring coupled with the genetic fallacy. His third

argument is an ad hominem coupled with the genetic fallacy and his last argument is

simply a non sequitur, as it does not matter that all religions claim miracles. The fact that

all religions claim miracles has no impact whatsoever on the claims of a particular religion.

In principle then, there is just no good a priori reason to reject miracle claims out of hand.

Only after a careful analysis of the facts can such judgement as to the truth or falsehood of

a miracle claim can be made. Assuming miracles are impossible prior to this is simply

circular reasoning.

This leads us to the second phase of defending the resurrection, the historical evidence.

What are the facts that we need to explain?

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. Jesus was buried, and His tomb was discovered empty by a group of His followers.

3. The disciples had experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen

Christ, and went from doubters to bold proclaimers.

4. Sceptics, such as Paul and James became believers.

We have already seen the evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion from the reports of historians

such as Tacitus, but what evidence have we got for the other facts? Jesus’ burial, the

empty tomb and the disciples’ belief are widely supported by a number of facts. The first

factor is that these facts are multiply attested by early, independent sources. 1 Corinthians

15 contains perhaps the earliest Christian material. As New Testament scholar Gary



Habermas writes:

“In the case of 1 Cor 15:3ff., critical scholars agree that Paul’s reception of at least the core

of this proclamation, and probably the creed itself, go back to the mid-AD 30s, when he

spent two weeks with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. But these two apostles had

the material before Paul did, and the events behind the reports are earlier still. This is

probably the chief argument that persuades the majority of scholars today that the

proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection originated in the earliest church. Virtually all critical

scholars think this message began with the real experiences of Jesus’ earliest disciples,

who thought they had seen appearances of their risen Lord. It did not arise at some later

date. Nor was it borrowed or invented.”[5]

The section in question, reads as follows:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins

according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day

according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.”[6]

This is paralleled in the book of Acts, and the Fours Gospels. We can reasonably assume,

that belief in the risen Christ was part of the Church since its very beginning. When we

come to these other facts, they are considered historical for a number reasons. Regarding

Jesus’ burial, as well as the conversion of Paul and James in that they are actually rather

embarrassing. In Paul’s letters, he frequently mentions that he used to persecute the

Church, and constantly berates himself for it. The admission in the Gospel narratives that

James, Jesus’ own brother, did not believe in Him whilst He was alive is extremely

embarrassing. The Gospels explicitly mention that the disciples did not believe Jesus

really had risen from the dead when the women followers first told them, with Thomas

being the last holdout, and that they fled Jesus when He was captured. These are not

things that someone would be apt to admit about themselves if they were true. No sane

person would INVENT these things about themselves. It may not be obvious, however,

how the burial of Jesus conforms to this principle.

Whilst this is a point I will discuss in detail later, it is a fact of extreme relevance to us

here. Jesus’ death by crucifixion was the most shameful death the Roman Empire had to

offer. Likewise, not only were crucifixion victims humiliated in their method of execution,

they were humiliated in their method of burial too. This is the central premise of an article

by Byron McCane:

• The processes of burial and mourning were meant to honour the dead and the denial of

these honours was a further dishonour.

• Based on Jewish custom, the Jewish leadership in Jesus’ day would have wanted Jesus

buried, not left on the cross.

As McCane notes:

“Ordinarily, death is an event which disrupts the functioning social order, for the death of

any particular individual tears away a member of a social network and forces the network



to reconstitute itself. Death rituals – i.e., burial customs and rites of mourning – are social

processes which the wounds which death inflicts on the social group. By burying the dead

and mourning their absence, members of a society affirm that someone significant had

been lost. When the Romans did not permit the burial of crucifixion victims, then, they

were doing more than merely showing off the power of Rome: they were also declaring that

the deaths of these victims were not a loss to Roman society. Far from it, the deaths of

condemned criminals actually served to strengthen and preserve Rome, protecting and

defending the social order of the Empire.”[7]

And:

“For Jews, one of those values was the importance of belonging to an extended family

group. The foundational narrative for Jewish culture was a story about a man whose

descendents were to be more numerous than the starts in the sky, and respect for the

family was enshrined in the moral charter of Judaism: “honor your father and mother.”

Jews in Jesus’ day typically lived in extended family groups, and routinely identified

themselves in legal documents, inscriptions, and literature as “X, son (or daughter) of Y.”

At life’s end, they thought it best to be buried with their nearest kin. To be buried away

from the family tomb – by design, not by fate – was to be cast adrift from these cultural

patterns, and dislodged from a place in the family. To be unmourned by one’s nearest

relatives was to be effaced from the cultural landscape. It was worse than unfortunate, it

was a shame.”[8]

Whilst it was customary to leave crucifixion victims on their crosses to be eaten birds,

sometimes the Romans did allow them to be buried, and since it was prohibited in

Judaism to leave a man hanging on a tree, then it makes sense that the Jewish authorities

would have petitioned to bury Jesus. Burying Jesus away from the family tomb was their

way of dishonouring Jesus themselves, and was not against the precepts of Judaism.

Furthermore, the admission in the Gospels narratives that Joseph of Arimathea, a

member of the Sanhedrin, buried Jesus rather than His family or disciples, is again

another extremely embarrassing feature of the Gospel story. The accuracy of the burial

tradition logically implies the accuracy of the empty tomb tradition. For if it was well

known that Jesus was buried, then it would have been a simple matter of checking Jesus’

tomb and exhuming the body of Jesus when the disciples began proclaiming His

resurrection. Yet, the earliest Jewish polemic was that they had simply stolen the body.

Quite simply, if the body were still in the tomb, then Christianity would have been crushed

like a bug.

We now come to the impossible faith defence, some of which has already been briefly

alluded to in defence of the minimal facts above. Some claim, rather oddly, that

Christianity fitted Roman, and thus classical values, like a glove. The reason Christianity

took off, they claim, is that it appealed to the average Roman citizen’s values. It does not

take an expert to realise how completely absurd this claim is:

“That there was an intrinsic incompatibility between Christianity and classical values was



apparent from the time Romans became aware of the presence of the new religion.

Christians were criticized on a variety of grounds, but principally because they had rejected

the gods of their ancestors and the civic values of Greco-Roman world. Their religion was

new; they had turned away from the traditions of their immediate ancestors, the Jews.

Because of their refusal to attend the festivals, they were seen as atheists and

misanthropists. In popular belief they even practiced incest and cannibalism. In short,

they did not fit into the system that had been sanctioned by centuries of classical use.”[9]

“Logically enough, the official response to Christianity was often repression. The new

religion had none of the characteristics that would have given it an approved status.”[10]

We can get much more specific than this. As noted, Jesus crucifixion and burial were

meant to shame Him. This is an important aspect of ancient life that often gets

overlooked. Jesus lived in what anthropologists refer to as an ‘agonistic society.’ That is to

say, the culture of Jesus’ day revolved around honour and shame. Honour was your

reputation, and your right to be treated as having certain worth, whereas shame was the

opposite, an emotion associated with loss or lack of honour. Both were dependent on other

people making assessments of you. In the ancient world, things that we today would

personally consider insignificant could be of tremendous value to one’s honour. The

accrual of honour was good, whereas the accrual of shame was bad. An example of this can

be taken from Japanese culture, where soldiers would kill themselves for failing in battle

out of shame.

When we come to the crucifixion, as noted, it was the most shameful method of death

available at the time. It was an “utterly offensive affair, ‘obscene’ on the original sense of

the word”[11] and a “status degradation ritual”[12] designed to humiliate the victim in

every way. Not only did it signify a loss of power and having someone assert their authority

over you, but crucifixion also led to other humiliating things, such as self-defecation.

Crucifixion was so offensive that pagan writers were simply too revolted to write about it.

The Gospel accounts therefore are among the most detailed written depiction of

crucifixion from written times. The shamefulness of crucifixion also took on a new

dimension in Judaism:

“But don't leave his body hanging on the tree overnight; be sure to bury him that same day,

because anyone whose body is displayed on a tree is cursed by God. You must not ruin the

land the LORD your God is giving you as your own.”[13]

This was recognised by Christians and non-Christians alike:

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are

being saved it is the power of God.”[14]

“For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the

right hand of the throne of God.”[15]

“For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place

second to the unchangeable and eternal God…”[16]



As noted by DeSilva:

“No member of the Jewish community or the Greco-roman society would have com o

faith or joined the Christian movement without first accepting that God’s perspective on

what kind of behaviour merits honor differs exceedingly from the perspective of human

beings, since the message about Jesus is that both the Jewish and Gentile leaders of

Jerusalem evaluated Jesus, his convictions and his deeds as meriting a shameful death,

but God overturned their evaluation of Jesus by raising him from the dead and seating

him at God’s own right hand as Lord.”[17]

Talking about crucifixion in ancient society would be like someone today walking into an

expensive restaurant, pulling down their trousers and defecating on somebody’s food.

Critics from Celsus to Lucian of Samosata noted with great malicious pleasure to the

disgracefulness of Jesus’ death. Even the lower classes expressed similar sentiments, as

evidence by a piece of graffiti depicting a man supplicating before a crucified figure with an

asses head, and the caption “Alexamenos worships god.”[18]

The second to factor to consider is that Christianity began as a Jewish sect, in the region

of Judea known as Galilee. The reason why this is important is because, in the ancient

world, there were stereotypes associated with certain geographic regions. Whilst today,

such as sentiments are noted as racist, xenophobic and bigoted, the ancients had no such

noble sentiments, and such derogatory stereotypes were assumed to be Gospel truth. The

Jews were regarded as a superstitious, spiteful and hateful race by the Greeks and Romans,

and so knocking on their door and asking them to worship a crucified Jew would have

caused them to have laughed in your face. Romans naturally considered their belief system

superior to all others, and beliefs regarded as superstition were seen as undermining the

social order.[19] Christianity therefore should not have spread beyond the Jews and the

small handful of Gentile converts to Judaism. However, it gets worse for Christianity.

Even in Judea, there were prejudices, and the geographic region of Galilee, which was

generally considered a land of yokels and farmers largely ignorant of the Torah.[20]

Furthermore, Galilee was also well-known for producing fighters, many of whom were

notorious leaders of Jewish rebellions against Rome.[21] Thus, this would have given the

Romans reasons to be very suspicious of Jesus and would have led to the educated Jews

dismissing Jesus as a country bumpkin. Furthermore, Jesus hailed from Nazareth, a town

of absolutely no significance and despite being born in Bethlehem, this would have placed

yet further stigma on Jesus. Lastly of all, Carpentry, which was Joseph and Jesus’

profession, and Jesus’ virgin birth would have also caused problems. Carpentry was

regarded as a dishonourable and proscribed occupation, whereas tales of His virgin birth

led to rumours about Him being an illegitimate bastard child, which critics such as Celsus

were keen to exploit.



In addition to Jesus’ death, His resurrection would have been a tremendous stumbling

block too. Whilst this might not seem apparent and even bizarre to modern readers,

resurrection was NOT something people back then would have looked forward too. The

reason for this was because pagan gentiles believed that the ultimate hope of life after

death lay in the immortal soul escaping the physical body after death. Matter, and thus the

physical world was seen as evil, and that “man’s highest good consisted of emancipation

from corporeal defilement.”[22] Resurrection on the other hand was the return to life of

your physical body, and subsequent transformation into a more advanced, ‘glorified’ body.

Jews, however, did expect a resurrection, however, they expected it and the end of time:

“Within the context of late Jewish apocalyptic thought, to claim the resurrection of a

single individual before the end of the world was to introduce quite a new element…

Neither the disciples nor anyone else expected the resurrection of one person alone.

Without a new, compelling reason they would not have asserted the individual

resurrection of Jesus alone.”[23]

Thus a resurrection occurring prior to the end of time would have been as absurd to a Jew

as the notion of resurrection was to a gentile. Of course, this is assuming all Jews accepted

belief in resurrection. There is some indication that this belief was not as widespread as

previously assumed, which would have made the notion of resurrection even harder to

accept amongst Jews.

There were further problems with Christianity than this. When it came to religious

traditions, the Romans valued antiquity. Traditions handed down from past generations

were regarded as the ideal standards to follow in order to live up to the standards of great

personages of the past.[24] Whilst the Romans recognised the antiquity of Judaism,

Christianity was new and Christians were regarded as “arrogant innovators.”[25] Despite

being a Jewish sect, and Christian writers claiming to that Christianity emerged from the

traditions of Judaism, critics of Christianity were quick to point out that Christians

observed none of Judaism’s practices. Another factor that is still a significant factor today

is that the ethical demands of Christianity were considerable. Ancient pagan religions

typically appealed to human being’s base instincts by offering temple prostitutes, drunken

parties and the like. Christianity, like Judaism, placed heavy ethical demands on the

individual that most would have simply found unattractive. In addition to these two

factors, a related factor was how Christianity claimed that it was exclusively the one true

religion and that all others were wrong. Christ was not simply a deity that could be

absorbed into the Roman or Greek pantheon, but the one true God that required you to

reject all others:

“The message about this Christ was incompatible with the most deeply rooted religious

ideology of the Gentile world, as well as the more recent message propagated in Roman

imperial ideology.”[26]



There was also a price to following Christianity. Given that Christianity was seen as not

only subversive and socially deviant, but offensive, early Christians would have been

universally shunned by their families and neighbours. Whilst Christians were eventually

being martyred for their faith in Christ, they would have initially faced extreme social

ostracisation that was geared towards getting social deviants back into the fold. This

would have started with insults, reproach, possibly even physical abuse and would have

progressed towards confiscation of property, etc.:

“The group would exercise measures designed to shame the transgressor (whether through

insult, reproach, physical abuse, confiscation of property – at worst, execution) so that the

transgressor would be pressured into returning to the conduct the group approved (if

correction were possible) and so that group members would have their aversion to

committing such transgressions themselves strongly reinforced.”[27]

One interesting point is how Christianity is based on claims made about History. As

noted, the truth of Christianity is predicated upon an alleged historical event, the

falsification of which would render the entire religion bunk. Furthermore, the New

Testament is littered with numerous claims that were as equally easily disprovable had

they been false. The apostles made a big deal about the witnesses to the risen Christ,

claiming that many of the 500+ witnesses were alive and so could have been interviewed.

Furthermore, the Gospels claim events, such as an earthquake and darkness at the time of

Jesus’ crucifixion that would have been witnessed by many thousands of people.

Obviously, not every convert would have checked all of the facts in detail, but people would

have critically investigated Christianity, and these things would have been easily exposed

had they been false.

Two further problems arise from the fact that the first witnesses to the risen Christ were

women, and the disciples themselves were ‘country bumpkins’ so to speak. Women in the

ancient world were second-rate citizens, whose testimonies were considered worthless

and inadmissible in court. Whereas, the disciples hailing from Galilee, and many of them

having simple professions like fishing would have served to cause others to view them as

disreputable characters. One’s social status was of great importance to ancient people, and

affected your credibility in court amongst other things. Furthermore, as a religion that

sought to erase class distinctions, Christianity would not just have been unpopular with

the elite, but the lower classes too:

“When ancient Mediterraneans speak of ‘freedom,’ they generally understand the term as

both freedom from slavery to one lord or master, and freedom to enter the service of

another lord or benefactor.”[28]

Everything that happened was put down to fate and providence and so your situation in life

was something that you endured, not fought.[29]

Another problem with Christianity from both a Jewish and Gentile perspective was the

fact that Jesus was a man. In Judaism, YHWH was unique and transcendent, whereas in

pagan religion, matter was considered evil. Thus, the idea that God became incarnate as a



man would have been unthinkable for Jews and Gentiles alike. This was such a powerful

issue that some Christians sought to deny that Jesus was really human at all, such as

Docetism. Furthermore, certain statements of Jesus would have been unthinkable of a

true deity to say in the eyes of Jews and Gentiles alike, such as Jesus’ ignorance of the date

of His second coming. Other stumbling blocks included being required to leave your family

and social group if needed, which, in a society that revolved around the social group rather

than the individual, would have been a massive deal. Far more so than today. There are

some things I have left out for sake of brevity, but the picture painted here shows

Christianity to be fully and completely incompatible with Jewish and pagan beliefs. This

raises the pertinent question: why then, did anybody believe in it all? Mithraism made no

hard demands on people, and Islam spread through a successful series of military

campaigns. No other religion faced as many disadvantaged, and Christianity certainly had

none of the benefits that other religions had.

Before we get around to considering historical hypotheses to explain these facts, there are

three last things to get out of the way, and they are: Jesus’ self-understanding, the mode of

Jesus’ vindication and the nature of the disciples visions of the risen Christ. It has been

assumed by some that Jesus never claimed He was divine, and that Jesus’ ministry and

miracles were inventions of the disciples. This is a view primarily championed by the

Jesus Seminar. It should be noted, however, that the Jesus Seminar is NOT scholarly, and

their work The Five Gospels is NOT scholarship. The Jesus Seminar operates from the

assumption that miracles are impossible, and that Jesus was nothing more than a sage

who went around telling parables. Not only do they regard the Gospel of Thomas as a

reliable source of information, when it is in fact a second century forgery, they also apply

criteria of authenticity to sayings of Jesus inconsistently. For example, Jesus’ use of the

title ‘Son of Man’ meets the criteria of dissimilarity and the criteria of multiple

attestation, yet is rejected as out of hand because it presents a high Christological view of

Jesus that the Seminar seeks to deny.

When assessing sayings as authentic, we generally use the following criteria:

• The criterion of dissimilarity. The saying is dissimilar from the teachings of Judaism,

and/or later Christianity.

• The criterion of multiple attestation. The saying appears in multiple sources.

• The criterion of embarrassment. The saying was embarrassing for some early Christians.

• The criterion of coherence. The saying coheres with everything else scholars have

discovered about Jesus.

In actual fact, there are many sayings of Jesus that meet these criteria that the Jesus

seminar simply dismisses out of hand for no reason other than it paints a picture of a

Jesus who thought Himself divine. It should be noted, that these criteria should not be

taken in isolation, but as a group, and these criteria can only be used to make positive

assessments, not negative assessments. In other words, they cannot be used to deny that

Jesus said something, only confirm it.



It should also be noted that these are the same criteria that the Jesus Seminar uses, and

are in fact also used by a wide number of critical scholars:

“When countering the claims of modern critics, it is often helpful to use common

methodologies to provide a level playing field from which we can dismantle their

conclusions with their own tools. One such strategy is to employ “criteria of authenticity”

that modern critics themselves use to deny the authenticity of events in Jesus’ life.”[30]

Yet, the Jesus Seminar consistently come to conclusions at odds with the results of the

application of these criteria. No it seems as if the Jesus Seminar is nothing more than a

biased ultra-liberal think-tank who. Not that they are not allowed to take liberal positions,

but it is obvious they have less than honourable intentions and instead seek to impose

their own views as fact rather than argue from them rationally based on evidence. Here is

what actual scholars have to say about the Jesus Seminar:

“Not only is the Jesus Seminar inconsistent in applying its own principles due to a strong

bias against seeing Jesus as more than a man, but such bias also leaves them with a Jesus

whose death as a criminal is a huge mystery. All historians know that an effect must have a

sufficient cause, But in the Jesus Seminar’s reconstructed and tame Jesus, the cause is

not sufficient for the effect of his crucifixion.”[31]

“Here is where I think many skeptical scholars, especially among the prominent members

of the Jesus Seminar, go wrong. They not only misapply some of the criteria (such as

dissimilarity) and ignore or misunderstand others (such as Semitisms and Palestinian

background), they tend to assume that sayings and deeds not supported by the criteria

must be judged as inauthentic. This severe, skeptical method leads to limited results,

results that can be badly skewed, if the starting points themselves are off-base and wrong-

headed.”[32]

“According to the Seminar, the historical Jesus by definition must be a non-supernatural

figure… Anything that is supernatural is by definition not historical. There’s no argument

given; it’s just defined that way… But now the whole quest of the historical Jesus becomes

a charade. If we begin by presupposing naturalism, then of course what we wind up with is

a purely natural Jesus. This reconstructed, naturalistic Jesus is not based on evidence, but

on definition. What is amazing is that the Jesus Seminar makes no attempt to defend

their naturalism; it is just presupposed.”[33]

“Here we plainly see a criterion against a high view of Jesus at work. But if the Jesus

Seminar is against seeing Jesus as more than a man as an a priori assumption, wouldn’t

that unduly bias them about who the real Jesus was? How can they honestly, openly assess

the data if it simply not possible for Jesus to predict the future?”[34]

“Their claim to have 200 scholars in the Seminar is grossly inflated: that figure includes

anybody who in any way was involved in the Seminar’s activities, such as being on a

mailing list. The real number of regular participants is only about 40. And what about the

scholarly credentials of the members? Of the 74 listed in their publication The Five

Gospels, only 14 would be leading figures in the field of New Testament studies. More than



half are basically unknowns, who have published only two or three articles. Eighteen of the

fellows have published nothing at all in New Testament studies! Most have relatively

undistinguished academic positions, for example, teaching at a community college.”[35]

In order to ascertain what Jesus thought of Himself, we need to take a look at various

sayings, and also assess them via the criteria mentioned. One additional criteria that is

often overlooked, however, bought up by scholar Craig Evans is the presence of Semitism

and Palestinian background. That is:

“… sayings and deeds that reflect Hebrew or Aramaic language (Semitisms), or reflect first-

century Palestine (geography, topography, customs, commerce)…”[36]

We must then assess sayings of Jesus to see if they are authentic and if they show that

Jesus thought of Himself as divine. Perhaps the most obvious fact about Jesus’ life is that

He was believed to be the messiah, but what reasons do we have to suppose Jesus thought

this about Himself, and what does this imply about Jesus if He did? The name Christ

comes from the Greek Christos, which is the Greek word for the Hebrew title mashiach,

meaning “anointed one” and where we get the word ‘messiah’ from. This title being

identified with Jesus is evident from the consistent use of the title coupled with the fact

that His followers named themselves Christians. This title therefore passes the criteria of

multiple attestation and the criteria of Semitic/Palestinian background. Whilst those

such as members of the Jesus Seminar would gripe that it does not pass the criteria of

dissimilarity, yet as noted, such criteria cannot be used negatively, and it already has

passed two criteria.

However, let’s humour them and try to find more reasons why this title goes back to Jesus

Himself. When we consider the fact that Jesus’ followers thought of Him as the messiah,

and later the risen, resurrected Lord, then it becomes inexplicable just why this is, unless

of course Jesus Himself claimed to be the messiah. As William Lane Craig notes:

“Unless Jesus himself made messianic pretentions, it is difficult to explain the

unanimous and widespread conviction that Jesus was the Messiah. Why, in the absence of

any messianic claims on Jesus’ part, would Jesus’ followers come to think of him as

Messiah at all, and why was there no non-messianic form of the Jesus movement?”[37]

Ironically enough, it can be noted that the notion of the messiah being vindicated via

resurrection cannot be found within Judaism, and so that such a self-identification DOES

pass the criterion of dissimilarity. So it seems as if the complaints of the Jesus Seminar

are simply without merit. Then again, nobody ever accused them of being interested in

scholarly debate. However, let us look as specific examples from the New Testament itself.

A specific verse where Jesus’ acknowledges Himself as the messiah is located in Mark 8:27-

30:

“Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he

asked them, “Who do people say I am?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others



say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do

you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.” Jesus warned them not to tell

anyone about him.”[38]

Of course, critical scholars would not be critical scholars if they did not dispute the

authenticity of this passage. However, this specific incident appears elsewhere, such as in

John 6:69:

“We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.””[39]

There are other instances in Mark and elsewhere of this kind of statement, such as in Mark

1:24, and Acts 3:14.

Another instance of note is where John the Baptist sends his disciples to ask Jesus if He is

the one who is to follow John the Baptist, in Matthew 11:3:

“…“Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?””[40]

And Luke 7:19:

“…he sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect

someone else?””[41]

Jesus’ reply in Luke 7:22-23 and Matthew 11:4-6 is to tell John’s disciples to report back to

John various signs:

“So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and

heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf

hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone

who does not stumble on account of me.”[42]

“Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight,

the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and

the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on

account of me.”[43]

This reply is directly appealing to various Old Testament prophecies contained in Isaiah

35:5-6; 29:19 and 61:1, the later of which explicitly mentions being God’s anointed one.

Another example of prophetic appeal is made when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey.

This is a conscious fulfilment of a passage in Zechariah 9:9-10:

“Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you,

righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. I will

take away the chariots from Ephraim and the warhorses from Jerusalem, and the battle

bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to

sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”[44]

Not to mention when Jesus is executed by the Roman state, a plaque with the words “King

of the Jews” is nailed to His cross. This was not a Christian title, and an allusion to Jesus’

messianic claims, so we have good reason for thinking this to be authentic. Some have

disputed Jesus’ riding on a donkey, however, on the grounds that the Romans would have

immediately arrested Him, and that the passage in question was not considered a



messianic prophecy until later Judaism. This is simply an example of critics trying to have

their cake and eat it. If it was not considered a messianic prophecy until later Judaism

then not only would this explain why He was not arrested, but it would also mean that it

passes the criterion of authenticity.

When Jesus, on a separate occasion, cleanses the temple, as well as His proclamation that

He will destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, we are again presented with

messianic aspirations. Indeed, Jesus’ threats against the temple were one of things bought

against Him when He was tried. The cleansing of the temple by Jesus was again a deliberate

act on Jesus’ part to fulfil Old Testament prophecy:

“Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the Lord All-Powerful, and everyone who

offers sacrifices will be able to take food from them and cook in them. At that time there

will not be any buyers or sellers in the Temple of the Lord All-Powerful.”[45]

Whereas, Jesus’ statement that He would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three times

was extremely provocative, as the building of the temple was considered the work of God

alone in Jewish thought. When Caiaphas demanded of Jesus if He claimed he would

destroy and rebuild the temple, he was therefore asking Jesus if He was assigning divine

roles to Himself. The reason why this would be of concern to the Romans was that the

Jewish messiah was also said to be the new King of Israel, and so a challenge to their

imperial rule. In the words of Darth Vader, Jesus was, to the Romans… “part of a rebel

alliance and a traitor.” The Romans, afterall, took sedition very seriously. William Lane

Craig has noted how Jesus’ statement about the temple fulfils a messianic meaning given

to 2 Samuel 7:12-14:

“'When you die and join your ancestors, I will make one of your sons the next king, and I

will set up his kingdom. He will build a house for me, and I will let his kingdom rule always.

I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he sins, I will use other people to punish

him. They will be my whips.””[46]

In one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q174, messianic meaning is given to this passage by

associating it with other Old Testament writings:

“The kingdom of David is like a fallen tent, but in that day I will set it up again and mend its

broken places.”[47]

This is in standing with the placard placed upon His cross, sarcastically calling Him, the

King of the Jews. Yet, what reason do we have for supposing that the messiah was a divine

figure? The following passage from Isaiah, amongst other descriptions, gives the foretold

messiah the title Mighty God:

“A child has been born to us; God has given a son to us. He will be responsible for leading

the people. His name will be Wonderful Counselor, Powerful God, Father Who Lives

Forever, Prince of Peace. Power and peace will be in his kingdom and will continue to grow

forever. He will rule as king on David's throne and over David's kingdom. He will make it

strong by ruling with justice and goodness from now on and forever. The LORD All-

Powerful will do this because of his strong love for his people.”[48]



This is backed up by other verses such as Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3:

“The LORD All-Powerful says, "I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way for me.

Suddenly, the Lord you are looking for will come to his Temple; the messenger of the

agreement, whom you want, will come."[49]

“This is the voice of one who calls out: "Prepare in the desert the way for the LORD. Make a

straight road in the dry lands for our God.”[50]

It seems obvious then, Jesus considered Himself to be the messiah, and there is a good

indication that this directly implies He also considered Himself to be divine. However,

there are two more titles attributed to Jesus that further strengthen that Jesus thought

Himself to be divine. The titles ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of Man’ are often considered non-

divine titles. For instance, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach claims that the title ‘Son of Man’, in

Hebrew ben Adam simply means a son of Adam, and thus a human title. However, a closer

analysis of these titles reveals a deeper meaning that reinforces the divine nature of the

messiah.

The title Son of Man is one of Jesus’ favourite self-descriptions, appearing throughout the

Gospels, yet it is only found elsewhere in the New Testament once, thus meeting the

criteria of dissimilarity as well as multiple attestation. However, what of this title? It is a

direct allusion to Daniel 7:13-14:

““In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming

with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his

presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of

every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass

away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”[51]

In Daniel’s statement, the messianic figure only APPEARS to be like a son of man. In

reality this Son of Man is, in actuality, a heavenly figure, who is given the glory and

dominion of God Himself! When Jesus is tried, the high priest, Caiaphas asks Jesus if He

is the Son of the Blessed. Jesus replies that He is, and that Caiaphas, et al. will see “the Son

of Man” sitting at “the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

Caiaphas then tears his robes and all the Jewish authorities present agree with him when

he accuses Jesus of blasphemy. Jesus has not only affirmed that He is the Messiah, God’s

unique Son and Anointed One, but that he the Danielic Son of Man, and that He will be

seated at God’s right hand, coming on the clouds over heaven. Sceptics and critics have

asked why Caiaphas et al. took Jesus statement to be blasphemy as, without any context, it

seems over the top and out of proportion with Jesus’ claims. Yet, the answer is that Jesus

was assigning Himself titles and asserting roles for Himself solely reserved for YHWH, the

One True, Holy and most High God of Israel.

Much more could be said in regards to how Jesus thought of Himself, and indeed, much

more has been said by scholars and thinkers far greater than myself. These three titles,

coupled with these authentic deeds and sayings of Jesus, are more than enough to

establish beyond all reasonable doubt what Jesus thought of Himself. This leads us to the



nature of the appearances of the risen Christ, and the mode of Jesus’ vindication. Bizarrely

enough, there are those who claim that Christianity originally believed in a “spiritual

resurrection” or that Jesus received a new body in heaven whilst his old body rotted in the

tomb. When we read the Gospel accounts of the appearances of Jesus have one thing in

common: they are explicitly physical in nature. The only possible exception is Paul of

Tarsus (formerly Saul), who had a visionary roadside experience, but we shall get to him

later. We shall first examine the nature of the immediate appearances to the women

followers and to the major disciples. The risen Jesus described in the New Testament is

not something revealed to the disciples in a heavenly vision or a dream, but something

they claim to have seen before their very eyes. Not only is this entity something they can

see, but also something that they, all of them, could even hear. Furthermore, not only

could they hear but they could also actually touch this entity.

After encountering an angel who informed them that Jesus was raised from the dead, and

that they should tell the other disciples, the women followers of Jesus encounter the risen

Christ:

“So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his

disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his

feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my

brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”[52]

The disciples:

“While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to

them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.

He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 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.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while

they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have

anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in

their presence.”[53]

These traditions meet the criteria of embarrassment, as well as the criteria of multiple

attestation. There are also other examples, including Jesus’ appearance to some of His

followers walking along the road to Emmaus, and also to Thomas. Finally, the disciples

witness the risen Jesus ascending into heaven. We also have other traditions outside of

the four Gospels, in Acts and the writings of Paul, where Jesus appears to the Church in

Jerusalem forty days after His resurrection (prior to His ascension.) He is also listed as

appearing to Stephen, James, and 500 others. These passages clearly point to a risen Jesus

was very much a physical being. Furthermore, Jesus’ body now possess certain

supernatural qualities, such as the ability appear and disappear at will, and the ability to

disguise His appearance.



What then of Paul? What was the nature of his experience? Paul is important as he was

previously an enemy of Christianity, and some have argued that his experience being

visionary in nature means this was the same for the other apostles. The specific word used

in the New Testament is anastasis, appearing in the text of the New Testament 44 times.

This word is directly translated into ‘resurrection,’ and a high number of instances are

used to directly and explicitly describe a physical bodily, resurrection. This word appears in

the writings of Paul, thus giving us reason to suppose he believed in the physical

resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s experience is reported in Acts three separate times, in a

narrative of Paul’s experience written by Luke, and two accounts of what Paul himself said

on two different occasions, in Acts 9:3-9, Acts 22:6-1, and Acts 26:12-18 respectively. In all

three accounts, Paul is on his way to Damascus at the behest of the Jewish authorities to

hunt down Christians, when an awesome light, said to be brighter than the sun, blinds

him and his companions. A voice then speaks to Paul in Aramaic, asking him why Paul is

persecuting the speaker. When Paul asks who is speaking, the voice replies that it is Jesus.

Jesus then commissions Paul to go into the city where he will receive instructions.

However, whilst his companions also hear the voice, they cannot understand what is being

said. After the experience is over, Paul finds himself physically blind and unable to see, and

so his companions have to lead him into the city.

His experience indicates a physical phenomenon, and not a vision, as not only can he see

this light and hear this voice, but so can his companions. Taken together with everything

else, Paul’s experience in no way implies a spiritual resurrection, or the idea that Jesus’ old

body still lay in the tomb and that He received a new body in heaven. Now, there is one

further fact pointing to Jesus’ mode of vindication, and that is the background cultural

milieu of 1st century Judaism. In Jewish thought, there are three modes of vindication,

found in the Old and New Testaments, as well as intertestamental and later Christian

tradition. These three modes are: assumption, resuscitation, and resurrection.

Assumption was simply being taken up into heaven, either just before death or afterwards.

This occurs in the Old Testament, to Enoch and Elijah. In extra-Biblical Jewish tradition,

this also happened to Moses and various intertestamental figures, and is also said to have

happened to Mary, the mother of Jesus, in late Catholic tradition. Resuscitation is a

return to life from death, however it differs from resurrection in that no transformation

takes place. Your original body is raised and repaired, but is not gloriously transformed.

This occurs in both Old and New Testaments. For example, the prophets of Elijah, Elisha

raise certain people in the dead, and in the New Testament, Jesus and later the disciples,

raise people from the dead.

The general understanding of resurrection in Jewish belief was that it was reserved for the

end of time, when the faithful would be raised from the dead to be with God. If the

disciples wanted to invent an account of Jesus’ vindication, why would they pick

resurrection? Indeed, from the Gospel accounts, the disciples can scarcely believe their

eyes. In light of the above, why would the disciples either invent the notion of



resurrection, or assume their visions to be of a resurrected Christ, unless He really

appeared to them resurrected? It literally makes no sense whatsoever. However, as noted,

the disciples did NOT expect Jesus to be vindicated. The New Testament is very clear that

the disciples deserted the moment He was arrested, and that even Peter denied Jesus three

times. However, what reasons do we have for thinking that this is an accurate depiction of

the past? It passes all the criteria for authenticity. It passes the criteria of embarrassment

and multiple attestations, but, moreover, it fits in with cultural background data we have

that they did not expect a dying and rising messiah. Thus we can say that the resurrection

hypothesis is strongly attested in the New Testament. To clarify, the resurrection

hypothesis is more than simply positing that just some guy randomly came back from the

dead, but that Jesus understood Himself as divine, that He undertook a ministry of

miracle working where He assumed the authority of God, that He was executed for His

messianic aspirations and was ultimately vindicated by God via resurrection from the

dead. After His death and resurrection, He then appeared to various groups of his followers,

including the twelve disciples, as well as Paul of Tarsus, an enemy of Christianity who

converted after his roadside experience.

This is the hypothesis that has been presented by believers in Christ for nearly 2000 years.

As a historian, it is my duty to give it as fair a hearing as possible, but not at the expense of

ignoring or glossing over others. Given the facts outlined, what is the best explanation of

them? Which historical hypothesis that attempts to explain these facts is the most

probably true? There are a variety of alternative hypotheses proffered in lieu of the

resurrection hypothesis that we must consider. If we can find a viable alternative to the

resurrection that meets the criteria outlined earlier in the chapter, then the resurrection

hypothesis can be discarded. However, if the resurrection hypothesis meets the criteria,

and we have no rival hypothesis, then it can be inferred that the resurrection hypothesis is

indeed, the most probably true. The hypotheses currently on the table are:

• The resurrection hypothesis.

• The swoon hypothesis.

• The decomposition hypothesis.

• The stolen body hypothesis.

• The wrong tomb hypothesis.

• The evil twin hypothesis.

• The hallucination hypothesis.

• The cognitive dissonance hypothesis.

The facts that require explaining are:

• Jesus was crucified and buried. Yet His tomb was later found empty.

• Jesus’ disciples, despite being distraught after Jesus’ death, and initially sceptical of the

reports that women followers of Jesus had seen Him alive, came to believe that He had

been resurrected after experiencing what they believed to be the risen Christ.

• Over 500 people were said to have had these same experiences, in groups, at the same



time, and for extended periods of time.

• Former sceptic, James, the brother of Jesus, and former enemy, Paul of Tarsus, were

both converted to Christianity, again after experiencing what they believed to be the risen

Christ.

• Belief in Christ spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire and survived despite

horrendous persecution, and the fact that the central tenets of Christianity were absurd

and offensive to both Jews and Gentiles.

Only by sufficiently explaining these facts by meeting the criteria previously laid can a

hypothesis be considered the most probably true.

The first of the alternatives, the swoon hypothesis argues that Jesus did not really die on

the cross. It is proposed that Jesus was taken down prematurely, as the Romans believed

Him to be dead, when in reality He wasn’t, and that He revived whilst in the tomb. Jesus

then emerges from the tomb, and that is how Christianity got started. However, this

hypothesis is highly problematic. The first problem lies in the sheer brutality of

crucifixion.

“Jesus of Nazareth underwent Jewish and Roman trials, was flogged, and was sentenced to

death by crucifixion. The scourging produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable

blood loss, and it probably set the stage for hypovolemic shock, as evidenced by the fact

that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha. At the site of

crucifixion, his wrists were nailed to the patibulum and, after the patibulum was lifted

onto the upright post (stipes), his feet were nailed to the stipes. The major

pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations.

Accordingly, death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia.

Jesus' death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier's spear into his side. Modern medical

interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down

from the cross.”[54]

“Death, usually after 6 hours--4 days, was due to multifactorial pathology: after-effects of

compulsory scourging and maiming, haemorrhage and dehydration causing hypovolaemic

shock and pain, but the most important factor was progressive asphyxia caused by

impairment of respiratory movement. Resultant anoxaemia exaggerated hypovolaemic

shock. Death was probably commonly precipitated by cardiac arrest, caused by vasovagal

reflexes, initiated inter alia by severe anoxaemia, severe pain, body blows and breaking of

the large bones. The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had

died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia

and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a

smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim.”[55]

The only known survivor comes from an account from Josephus, whereby he saw three of

his friend’s being crucified and went to Titus to have them taken down. However, despite

being taken down, two of them died “under the physicians hands,” and only the third

recovered.[56]



A second problem is that we have to suppose that the Roman soldiers were incapable of

diagnosing the signs of death. Now, in our modern cream-puff society, we hardly ever get

to see a real dead body. Whereas back in the “good ‘ol days” death was a constant reality that

everybody had to deal with. Furthermore, Jesus was placed on and taken from the cross BY

HAND, by Roman soldiers. The Romans performed crucifixions regularly, and soldiers had

greater experience with death than the average citizen, due to their profession. The signs

of death would have been readily identifiable. The third is that if Jesus somehow survived

and the Romans somehow misdiagnosed Jesus as dead when He was still alive, He would

not have been able to life the stone in front of the tomb. Jesus would have been hanging on

the cross for hours, and would have been in no state to do anything, much less push back a

giant stone blocking the entrance. The final fact is that even if we discount these

problems, nobody would have mistook Jesus for a resurrected being had He emerged from

the tomb like that. Jesus was battered, bruised, enfeebled, and yet we are to suppose that

the disciples believed Him to be resurrected? Furthermore, where did He go afterwards?

Thus, this hypothesis fails to explain the facts.

The decomposition hypothesis proposes that Jesus’ body WAS produced, but that it was

just too decomposed to be readily identifiable. The first major problem with this is that

there is no mention of such a controversy in Christian and Jewish sources. The earliest

Jewish polemic against Christianity pre-supposes that Jesus’ tomb was found empty, by

arguing that the disciples had stolen the body. This is simply incompatible with the

notion that a body was produced. If the stolen body proposal were simply an invention of

the Gospel writers, then the Jewish authorities would have noted that they said no such

thing. If a body was produced and the Jewish authorities were claiming it to be Jesus, then

this would have forced the early Christian to address these claims, just as they were forced

to address claims of Jesus’ body being stolen. Even if the Jewish authorities produced an

unidentifiable body, then the burden of proof would have fallen to the Christians to show

that it was not Jesus, and so we would have seen evidence in the literature of such a claim.

The second problem is that we have good evidence to suppose that ancient Jews had ways

of identify remains:

“Carefully observing where Jesus is buried and then returning on the Sunday morning to

confirm and even mark, for identification, his corpse, is in keeping with Jewish burial

customs. After all, m. Sanh. 6.5-6 implies that bodies are still identifiable, long after

decomposition of the flesh. How was this done? We don’t know, but evidently the Jewish

people knew how to mark or in some way identify a corpse, so that it could be retrieved

some time later. We should not allow our ignorance of such customs, or our

condescension, to lead us to discount such tradition as implausible.”[57]

Thus the decomposition hypothesis is thus problematic and implausible. The original

anti-apologetic argument is that the body of Jesus was stolen. Whilst back in the day, the

Jewish authorities claimed it was the disciples; today we have a range of proposed body

snatchers. A list of proposed thieves:



• The Roman or Jewish authorities.

• Necromancers.

• The gardener.

• The disciples.

Positing that the Jewish or Roman authorities stole Jesus’ body is just bizarre and so

absurd that it hardly merits serious consideration at all. For what did the Roman or

Jewish authorities seek to gain from such a deception, and why did they not then crush

the upstart cult by producing the body? This makes no sense whatsoever, in any way. What

then, of the proposed solution, that necromancers just happened to break into Jesus’

tomb, or perhaps deliberately sought His tomb out, due to His reputation as a holy man, to

use His body parts in their arcane rituals, etc. The first problem that proponents of this

claim run in to is that would need to provide some evidence that such a group existed in

1st century Judea and Jerusalem. The second problem is that grave robbers such as

necromancers would have picked easier targets if they were just randomly going through

graves. It would be far easier to just steal the body of a peasant than somebody buried in a

tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea. The third problem is that Jesus would not have been

sought out by such people as a “holy man” to be used in their various rituals, given that

Jesus was executed as a criminal via crucifixion and so would have lost such a status

outside of his in-group of followers. The last problem is that the whole body would not

have been used. It was far easier to remove an arm or leg, rather than making of with an

entire cadaver. If by some chance they wanted to use the whole body, then they would have

performed their ritual in the tomb itself, as it would have been easier and reduced the risk

of detection.

A second proposal is that it was the gardener. In the Gospel of John, Mary mistakes Jesus

for the gardener and asks Him where the body went. It is therefore supposed by some

critics that she thought the gardener was a likely candidate of the mover of Jesus’ body.

Furthermore, some note that the Church Father Irenaeus also mentioned that some had

made this argument, which therefore shows that someone must have thought it plausible

that the gardener had reason to take Jesus’ body. However, is this reasonable? Mary’s

reaction merely implies that, as an employee of the garden, would thus have some

knowledge of what had happened. Secondly, the mere fact that somebody made the

argument that it was the gardener means nothing in terms of plausibility. The reason

given in Tertullian’s day was that the gardener moved the body so that curious crowds

would not trample his lettuces, a suggestion that is neither plausible nor practical. Thus

we end up with the claim that the Jewish authorities made: the disciples did it! Is there

any reason to suppose that this is a reasonable solution? The answer again is no, for would

the disciples have suffered or died for something they knew was false? Again, as I have

mentioned, the disciples and early Christians faced extensive social persecution and even

martyrdom for their beliefs.



One interesting fact is how it is reported that Jesus’ grave clothes were left behind in the

tomb. Tomb robbers or thieves, such as the disciples, would not have bothered

unwrapping the body before stealing it, especially given the need to operate stealthily and

hastily. It also does not make much sense, as why would body-snatching thieves even

think of taking off Jesus’ grave clothes? Another fact that has been conceded until now, is

the guards placed outside of the tomb. No doubt hyper-sceptical critics would dismiss the

tomb being guarded as a “pious fiction” or something similar. The common defence of this

aspect of the story is that Matthew’s account indicates that Jewish opponents of

Christianity took the presence of guards outside Jesus’ tomb for granted. A further

defence involves the fact that the presence of guards would have been yet another

shameful thing for Christians to admit. It has been noted that Jesus was executed and

buried shamefully and dishonourably. However, the presence of the guard would have been

a further shame and dishonour:

“Rites of mourning were not observed for these criminals, either. Family members were

supposed to keep their grieving to themselves… From the Hebrew Bible through the

rabbinic literature, dishonorable Jewish burial meant two things: burial away from the

family tomb, and burial without rites of mourning.”[58]

Whilst they were presumably there to prevent theft of the body, the main purpose of such a

detachment, whether they be Roman centurions or Jewish temple guards, were to prevent

public mourning rites. It seems to me that the only reason why some dismiss the tomb

guard is because it renders the stolen body hypothesis completely implausible.

Another proposal is that the women followers went to the wrong tomb. Instead of going to

Jesus’ tomb, they erroneously went to the wrong one. One has to say that this is a view

that has not commanded any deal of scholarly attention. Now, on the surface, any wrong

tomb hypothesis already suffers from a myriad of problems. We are to suppose that not

only did the women go to the wrong tomb, but that the other disciples did as well.

Furthermore, if this had been the case then it would have been used as a polemic against

Christianity, and Jesus’ body would have been produced. Some have suggested that Jesus

was only temporarily buried and later moved to a graveyard reserved for criminals. Whilst

this again fails to overcome the aforementioned problems, this also runs into the problem

that there is no such evidence of temporary burial in Jewish law or custom.[59] Another

hypothesis is that Jesus had an “evil twin” or doppelganger that either operated in

cohesion with Jesus or else used Jesus’ death as a chance to have some fun, in order to

trick people into believing Jesus had risen. This hypothesis is so riddled with problems

that I scarcely know where to begin. First of all, the sheer unlikelihood of someone that

just happens to look exactly like Jesus is mind-boggling. Second, how would this “evil

twin” pull off the hoax? Jesus’ body would still have been in the tomb, and then there is the

question of where he would have gone. Thirdly, an ordinary man who looks exactly like

Jesus would not convince the disciples that Jesus had been resurrected. Resuscitated,

maybe, but not resurrection.



Some have proposed that the disciples suffered from hallucinations, and that this explains

the post-mortem appearances of Jesus. The main problem with this hypothesis is that the

disciples did not merely claim to see the risen Jesus, but that He spoke to them, and that

they even touched Him! Furthermore, Jesus did not appear to one disciple in isolation,

but groups of them, and for very long periods of time. In fact, the risen Jesus was said to

have spent roughly 40 or so days with the disciples. The range of people who claimed to

have seen the risen Jesus is also quite extensive. We have the women followers of Jesus,

the remaining 11 of the 12 disciples, two disciples on the road to Emmaus, James (Jesus’

brother and a sceptic who was not a follower of his brother), Jude (another brother of

Jesus, also a sceptic), and Paul (a Pharisee and enemy of Christianity who actively

persecuted the church prior to his conversion). Furthermore, we are told that the risen

Jesus appeared to roughly 500 people (this may or may not include the previous

encounters.) The risen Jesus even was said to have eaten food with the disciples. This is

extremely incompatible with the notion of ordinary hallucination. Some, however, have

appealed to a phenomenon called “mass hallucination,” which some claim can account for

all of these ‘appearances.’ Some have appealed to alleged “miraculous phenomenon”

involving people who claimed to have seen the Virgin Mary and claimed that she revealed

to them when and where a miraculous event involving the sun would occur. Thousands of

people gathered to where the event was said to occur and lo and behold, they witnessed

what appeared to be the sun moving and behaving erratically… despite the fact people

looking through telescopes observed no change.

Appealing to such events backfires, for the sole reason that they are no comparison to the

appearances of Jesus. In this case, there is a perfectly good naturalistic explanation:

namely that staring directly at the sun is bad for your eyes, and causes visual phenomenon

and disturbances. Secondly, a lot of people were expecting something to happen. Did Paul

or James expect to encounter the risen Jesus? Not even the disciples would have expected

that Jesus would be resurrected. However, a third problem is that these events happened

all at once, whereas the appearances of Jesus occurred over a long period of time, well over

a month, and to separate groups. Lastly, as aforementioned, people looking through

specialist telescopes observed no movement of the sun, whereas those who witnessed the

risen Jesus actually touched Him. However, in order to demonstrate that the appearances

of the risen Jesus really were mass hallucinations, then we need to see if they match the

necessary criteria for them to be classified as such. Yet from these two examples and from

professional criteria, it seems that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus do not fall under

the category of collective hallucinations:

“The same hallucination may be experienced by two or more persons. If the event is

entirely subjective, as all hallucinations are, how do two or 200 people manage to

coordinate and synchronize their lives? Recall our discussion of the role of expectation and

misperception in the preceding chapter. It is expectation that plays the coordinating role

in collective hallucination. Although the subject matter of individual hallucinations



virtually has no limits, the topics of collective hallucinations are limited to certain

categories. These categories are determined, first, by the kinds of ideas that a group of

people may get excited about as a group, for emotional excitement is prerequisite of

collective hallucinations. The most common causes of emotional excitement in groups

are religious, and, indeed, phenomena related to religion are most often the subject of

collective hallucinations. Second, the categories are limited by the fact that participants in

the hallucination must be informed beforehand, at least concerning the broad outlines of

the phenomenon that will constitute the collective hallucination. This may take the form

of publicly announced prophecy, for example, or someone suddenly looking up and saying.

“Lo, in the sky!” or words to that effect. Things in the sky, or at least overhead, are the

most commonly seen collective hallucinations: radiant crosses, saints, religious symbols,

flying objects, sometimes all these in combination. Once the general type of hallucination

is established, it is easy to harmonize individual differences in the accounts. This may

take place during the hallucination or in subsequent conversations.”[60]

“The contents of hallucinations can vary over a very wide range of subjects for a given

individual. The range of content is prescribed by the hallucinator’s past experiences, and

these are heavily influenced by culture. For this reason, a Crow Indian or an Aborigine

from New Hebrides would be quite unlikely to hallucinate pixies, fairies, or gnomes clad in

medieval European garb. The LSD user in the Western culture will also hallucinate only

that to which the culture has exposed him or her. However fantastic a given hallucination,

upon examination, it will be seen to contain only elements from the hallucinator’s past

experience.”[61]

We are faced with the following criteria:

1. Expectation plays a key role.

2. Visions are not seen by everybody present.

3. Visions are seen differently.

4. Emotional excitement present in people witnessing hallucination.

5. Being informed beforehand of an event occurring.

6. Conforms to past experience and background knowledge.

7. Such phenomena are limited in duration.

Yet none of these criteria are present in the reports of the risen Jesus. There are further

problems even than this. For the hallucination hypothesis does not account for either the

empty tomb, or the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. If the disciples had suffered collective

hallucinations then, besides from the Gospel accounts being very different, then the tomb

would still have contained Jesus’ body and a resurrection before the end of time was most

definitely part of the disciples’ expectations or background cultural knowledge.

Furthermore, it leaves the appearances to those sceptical and critical of Christianity, who

did not expect to see a risen, exalted Jesus in any form, let alone a resurrected Jesus. It

therefore seems that, whilst attractive on the surface, fails to account for all the facts, and



for those it attempts to explain, falls short of the mark. This failure has led to an even

more extravagant hypothesis that the disciples, James, Paul, et al. all suffered from a

condition known as cognitive dissonance.

What is cognitive dissonance? Cognitive dissonance, like hallucination, is another

psychological phenomenon. It was first researched in the 1950s by a fellow named Leon

Festinger[62], which led to a significant number of articles by other authors on the subject

following his key experiments and publications. The nature of the experiments he

conducted were as follows:

• A person arrives at an experiment where they are asked to perform a boring task

involving turning pegs.

• After completing the task, they are told to greet the next person and inform them that

the task is a very enjoyable one (an obvious lie) since the experimenter is too busy.

• The person is then either paid $1 or $20 in 1959 US dollars.

• The person greets the next participant and tells them that the task is enjoyable.

• After lying, they are then asked if they found the boring task interesting.

People who were paid $1 thought that the task was not interesting, whereas people who

were paid $20 thought that the task was interesting. What this means is that when a

person performs an action or follows behaviour that conflicts with their attitudes or

values, a psychological tension, known as cognitive dissonance is felt. In order to relieve

this tension, several strategies can be employed by the people who feel it:

• Changing one of the components of the situation, typically attitude.

• Adding new elements to reduce the level of inconsistency, typically claiming things such

as “they probably didn’t believe me when I lied.

• Trivialising elements, such as claiming “honesty isn’t that big of a deal to me.

• A fourth response reported by different authors is denial of responsibility, such as

claiming “I had no choice, it was my job to lie.”[63]

The problem with this hypothesis is that cognitive dissonance only leads to a change in

attitude or behaviour after an event. It does not lead to people inventing things out of

whole cloth. Some appeal to a UFO cult studied by Festinger, et al. who believed that they

would be teleported off of the planet by aliens. When the event did not come to pass, one of

them claimed to have received a communication from the aliens saying that the event was

merely postponed.[64] The first problem is that the UFO cult event does not match

identified strategies for dealing with cognitive dissonance. The second problem is that

this occurrence is disanalogous for what happened to the disciples. After the event failed

and the UFO cult modified its claims, membership declined and members became less

devoted, whereas prior to the failed event, members were more plenteous and devoted. In

the case of the disciples, prior to the resurrection event, they were less devoted and lesser

in number. After the event, the disciples became more devoted and Christianity literally

skyrocketed. Lastly, the person who claimed to receive the communication allegedly



received their communication in private, whereas Jesus appeared publicly before groups of

disciples as well as to enemies and sceptics. This therefore does not adequately explain

belief in the resurrected Jesus.

How do these hypotheses then fair in fulfilling the seven criteria laid out earlier? The

criteria are:

1. Along with the other data considered to be true, the hypothesis must imply further

observational statements.

2. The hypothesis must possess greater explanatory scope, that is cover more data.

3. The hypothesis must possess greater explanatory power, that is render the data the

hypothesis implies more probably.

4. The hypothesis must be more plausible, that is be implied by more accepted truths.

5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc, that is suppose fewer new elements about the past

not already implied.

6. The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs.

7. The hypothesis must exceed rivals hypotheses in criteria 1-6 so as to render any other

hypothesis less likely to meet these conditions by a significant order of magnitude.

All hypotheses on the table currently meet the first criterion, as they are all attempting to

explain certain data. Certain hypotheses, however, fail criterion two, as they are limited in

scope. The hallucination and cognitive dissonance hypotheses only attempt to explain the

belief in the risen Jesus and the post-mortem appearances bust says nothing of the empty

tomb. The wrong tomb hypothesis only attempts to explain the empty tomb but not the

resurrection appearances. When it comes to the third criterion, this is where rival

hypotheses begin to flounder. The resurrection hypothesis meets this criteria, as the data

we have is what we would expect if the resurrection were true. If the stolen body

hypothesis were true, then why would the disciples invent the story of the women being

the first to discover the empty tomb? Why would they include so many embarrassing

details in the Gospel accounts? If the swoon hypothesis were true, then how would a man

who had endured hours of torture (if he even survived) be even capable of removing the

stone from the tomb and convincing his disciples that he was resurrected? If the

decomposition hypothesis were true, then why is there no mention of such a controversy

in the written record? Instead, the earliest polemic against Christianity presupposes the

empty tomb. Not to mention the fact that Jews possessed means of identifying remains. If

the wrong tomb hypothesis were true, then why was not Jesus’ body produced and how

does this account for the post-mortem appearances of Jesus? If the evil twin hypothesis

were true, then why did the disciples come to believe in resurrection, rather than

resuscitation? If the hallucination or cognitive dissonance hypotheses were true, then the

Gospel accounts would be radically different and would not account for enemies and

sceptics coming to believe in Christianity. Furthermore, they do not explain the empty

tomb.



Regarding the fourth criterion, again rival hypotheses do not meet this criteria. Given

Jesus’ self-understanding as well as the socio-cultural and religious context of the day

rendering a crucified and resurrected messiah absurd to Jews and pagan Gentiles alike, the

resurrection hypothesis becomes highly plausible once on abandons the prejudiced view

against miracles even being possible and at least consider them possible. Hypothesis and

cognitive dissonance hypotheses are implausible, given that the resurrection appearance

accounts do not match known examples of collective hallucination or cognitive

dissonance. Stolen body hypotheses are implausible because of just how intricate and

elaborate a cover-up would be required to pull it off. Given the socio-cultural and religious

background, then belief in resurrection becomes highly implausible given that no Jew

believed that anybody would be resurrected prior to the end of time. Jewish heroes were

either claimed to be assumed into heaven, whereas other character were resuscitated.

Furthermore, groups that could be argued to have motive to steal Jesus’ body would have

had to have contended with the tomb guard. The swoon hypothesis is extremely

implausible, as we are to suppose that Jesus somehow survived hours of torture, was

capable of removing the stone from His tomb and then persuading His disciples that He

was resurrected. The decomposition hypothesis is implausible as Jews possessed means

of identifying remains, and there is no mention of a body being produced. Such a

controversy would have left a mark in the written record, yet we have nothing. The evil

twin hypothesis is implausible because it suggests a level of intricacy, deception, and

conspiracy that is even greater than stolen body hypotheses. Furthermore, why would the

disciples come to believe a man that looks like Jesus is the resurrected Christ, rather than

the resuscitated Christ?

Regarding the fifth criterion, the resurrection hypothesis stands head and shoulders above

the rest. The only new thing that we have to suppose is the existence of God. Whereas with

other hypotheses, we have to assume a variety of new elements. In the hallucination and

cognitive dissonance hypotheses, we have to suppose that 500+ people (including sceptics

and enemies of Christianity), over a period of 40 days, in groups as well as individually

separate from one another, all had exactly the same, or at least very similar experiences

that were not a part of their previously existing socio-cultural or religious background

knowledge. With the stolen body hypothesis, we have to assume that the apostles

knowingly lied, and somehow persuaded hundreds of others that Jesus had really risen

from the dead, despite the fact a crucified and resurrected messiah would have been absurd

to Jews and pagan Gentiles. The decomposition hypothesis requires us to assume that

identification of remains is impossible, and that no single Christian writer addressed the

charge, despite addressing stolen body charges. The swoon hypothesis requires us to

assume that a man can survive hours of absolutely brutal torture, was capable of lifting a

one-ton stone from the front of the tomb and then persuade people he has been

resurrected despite being in an enfeebled condition. The wrong tomb hypothesis requires

to believe that the Sanhedrin would not produce Jesus’ body in light of the disciples’



claims, and that the disciples would come to believe in a resurrection based on an empty

tomb alone. The evil twin hypothesis requires us to believe that Jesus either had a twin, a

lookalike, or doppelganger who either operated in collusion with Jesus or acted on their

own volition, whereby one is crucified, and the other hides and then appears later and

somehow convinces the disciples he is the risen Christ. We are also required to believe

that this conspiracy escaped the notice of everybody who knew Jesus personally.

Regarding the sixth and final criterion: the resurrection is only rendered implausible or

even impossible if we adopt a naturalistic, materialistic and/or atheistic worldview. If we

adopt an agnostic position, then it at least becomes possible. With the other hypotheses,

as mentioned above, they are disconfirmed by literally dozens of facts. No known

hallucination or cognitive dissonance matches the disciples’ experiences. The concept of a

crucified and resurrected messiah was absurd to Jews and pagan Gentiles. Even if the

disciples had stolen the body, then they should not have secured such a following. They

would have been more likely to invent a more believable hypothesis. There is no evidence

that suggests someone can survive a crucifixion and all the other forms of torture used

along with it and then proceed to move a one-ton stone from a guarded tomb and then

persuade people they are resurrected. Jews possessed means of identifying remains, and

there is no record of the Jewish or Roman authorities producing a body and claiming it to

be Jesus, yet the Gospels specifically address the charge that the disciples stole the body.

There is no shred of evidence of a Jesus look a like, and the level of conspiracy involved is

far too intricate and convoluted to have been successful and even if by some chance it had

been, nobody would have come to believe in a resurrected Jesus. If the women followers

had gotten the wrong tomb, then it defies reason that the disciples could have gotten the

tomb wrong too, and that the Jewish or Roman authorities would not have produced

Jesus’ body. Thus, when we review these six criteria, the resurrection hypothesis stands

alone in meeting them all, thus meeting the seventh and final criterion.

However, Hector Avalos, who is a Biblical scholar and critic of Christianity, has charged

those who make use of such criteria (Christian philosopher William Lane Craig is singled

out in particular) as misrepresenting them in his book The End of Biblical Studies.[65] As

you may recall, such criteria were taken from C. Behan McCullagh’s work. Craig, myself, et

al. are therefore all charged with abusing McCullagh’s work and misrepresenting his

criteria for evaluating historical hypotheses. Are there are any basis for such accusations?

His claims are as follows:

1. Craig misuses McCullagh’s criteria.

2. Disproof by counter-claims can be made regarding other miracle events, such as

apparitions of Mary.

3. Craig is a ‘selective supernaturalist.’

Let’s take these one at a time. In support of 1, Avalos cites a debate Craig had with Gerd

Lüdemann, where Craig misses one of the criteria. The problem with such an example, is

that this is a public debate, where Craig has to cut material down for sake of brevity.



Secondly, Craig uses the full seven criteria multiple times in his published work. I can only

call this attempt by Avalos here disingenuous, and unbecoming scholarly conduct. Avalos

goes on, however, to say that McCullagh’s criteria can only be used to differentiate between

rival naturalistic hypothesis, not between naturalistic and supernaturalistic hypotheses.

However, this is simply a case of Avalos trying to smuggle in his personal metaphysical

beliefs and pass them off as historical criteria. As we have already discussed, there is no

reason to a priori dismiss miracle claims. We can only dismiss claims after a careful and

considered historic approach and we find the hypothesis to be wanting. Simply dismissing

hypotheses out of hand just because they conflict with your personal opinions on reality is

simply non-conducive to historical research and behaviour unbecoming of a scholar.

McCullagh himself makes no such distinction that rules out supernatural hypotheses in

his work. Avalos, however, points to McCullagh himself disagreeing with Craig’s

conclusion that the resurrection meets the criteria. Avalos quotes McCullagh stating that

the resurrection hypothesis is of greater explanatory scope and power, but that he believes

it is less plausible and is more ad hoc. However, he does not dismiss the resurrection

hypothesis out of hand merely because it is supernatural. Furthermore, Craig is well aware

of McCullagh’s position and has been since as early as 1994.[66] Avalos even cites one of

Craig’s works where he makes such a response, yet despite being published 13 years prior

to the publication of Avalos’ work, Avalos does not interact with them at all. Such conduct

is truly disgusting and hideously unprofessional. It is no surprise that Avalos’ book was

not peer-reviewed but instead published by Prometheus Books, a publisher of purely

atheistic books. Avalos also charges McCullagh’s criteria as being subjective, and that

Craig’s appeal to the majority of New Testament scholarship in support of the minimal

facts is fraudulent. Are there any good reasons for thinking so? Again, the answer is no, as

Avalos is once again guilty of gross misrepresentation and wilful neglect of key details.

Regarding his complaint again the criteria, he says the criterion of plausibility is

subjective because it relies on one’s worldview. He gives an example of the death of William

II where one of the hypotheses is that his death was the result of witchcraft. He cites

McCullagh as saying that one’s view of this hypothesis is dependent on one’s view on the

occult. Avalos then quips that if one accepted that Krishna works in the world, then this

would allow us to consider Hindu miracle claims as plausible. The major problem with this

criticism is that Avalos totally neglects to mention that McCullagh goes on to refer to

medieval historian and expert on the life of William II, Christopher Brooke.[67] Brooke

addresses the witchcraft hypothesis not because it is supernatural, but due to the lack of

evidence that William II was a devil-worshippers and the lack of evidence for the presence

of Luciferians in England at the time. Brooke then offers the explanation of stories

surrounding William IIs mysterious death were embellishments added by ecclesiastical

chroniclers who suffered at William II and whom wished divine judgement upon. The only

criticism of McCullagh here is that he does not directly distinguish the difference between

mere possibility, and actual plausibility. Regarding his claim about Craig’s appeal to NT



scholars, this is simply false. Craig refers to a wide swath of academia including those

opposed to his own beliefs. Craig then extensively deals with the areas in which other

scholars disagree with him. Avalos’ dishonesty is blatantly obvious here. However, Avalos’

claims can simply be demolished with the following quote from McCullagh himself:

“With extraordinarily erudition, Craig sketches the arguments of major thinkers of both

past centuries and recent times, and he presents his own reasons for concluding tat

traditional Christians doctrines about God and Jesus are credible. His replies to those

skeptical of the existence of God, of historical knowledge, of the occurrence of miracles,

and in particular the resurrection of Jesus, take debates over those difficult subjects an

important stage further. Here is an admirable defender of basic Christian faith.”[68]

What of Avalos’ second claim then, that there is disproof by counter example? It is odd how

Avalos appeals to apparitions of Mary, considering these are perfectly consistent with

Christianity, especially Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. Avalos would need to provide

an example that passes the criteria yet would not be compatible with Christianity. The

second problem is that even if Avalos could show that another supernatural hypothesis, it

would not mean that the resurrection hypothesis is false, unless a miracle claim

incompatible with Christianity could pass the criteria. What then of Avalos’ actual

example? Again, Avalos consistently fails to deliver. Avalos cites an apparition of Mary to a

group of children in Medjugorje, Yugoslavia who never recanted, and who were medically

examined and diagnosed as not suffering from hallucinations. Avalos contends that this

apparition meets the criteria and has the same evidentiary support that the resurrection

has. However, when one analyses the facts, one finds a lot of holes in Avalos’ claims and

statements. One, There at the very least four generally accepted facts relating to the

resurrection of Jesus, whereas there are none regarding the assumption of Mary.

Furthermore, belief in the assumption of Mary did not arise to the 5th and 6th centuries.

Secondly, contrary to the belief of Jesus’ original followers, there is good prima facie

evidence for a natural explanation. Thirdly, unlike Jesus, Mary made no such claims about

herself. Fourthly, belief in the assumption of Mary most certainly does not exceed rival

hypotheses in meeting our historical criteria. Lastly, we have no reason to accept the

veridicality of the Marian apparitions unlike what we have with the appearances with

Jesus.[69]

As for the last claim, this is simply a variant of the “one less god” argument that theists

who hold to particular religions are inconsistent by accepting their religion’s truth claims

whilst rejecting others. However, as I have shown, there is a strong evidentiary basis for

Christianity. Unless Avalos can show that another religion also passes such tests, then his

claim is bunk. Ironically enough, Avalos claims Craig is a selective supernaturalist by

citing certain parts of Matthew being apocalyptic imagery and not historical events. Avalos

claims that is at odds with claiming the miraculous resurrection as being historical whilst

rejecting other miraculous events as apocalyptic imagery. This is reminiscent of how

recently, Norman Geisler, a fundamentalist Christian, accused New Testament scholar



Michael Licona of “abandoning inerrancy” for reaching similar conclusions. The reasons

for this are the evidence of the text itself and the literary genre of the passages in question

as opposed to the resurrection accounts, Whilst the Gospels are recognised as being

biographies of Jesus, some contain apocalyptic imagery, like Matthew. This is ascertained

through careful literary analysis. The same analysis shows no such claims can be made

about the resurrection narratives, which lack such apocalyptic imagery and language.

Thus, I can only conclude that Hector Avalos is simply an imbecile who is being

intentionally dishonest and disingenuous in order to attack Dr. Craig, et al.

Whilst the conclusion reached by assessing the resurrection by historical standards, when

we factor in the socio-cultural facts bought up by the impossible faith approach, then

these conclusions are strengthened by a significant order of magnitude. However, some

have complained that nobody would have checked the facts and point to other religions

that have allegedly survived “equally impossible odds.” Before we come to a close, I shall

quickly address these two points. In group-orientated cultures, such as 1st century Judea,

neighbours were expected to mind each other’s business. Privacy was simply unknown,

unexpected and unwelcome to the point where it raised suspicion about those who were

being secretive.[70] Neighbours exerted constant vigilance over each other, as people were

constantly concerned for their appearance in terms of honour and shame:

“Men and women were surveyed from every point of the social compass… The Romans

believed that the person who allowed excessive privacy would lose all self-control and

become shameless… The Roman way demanded a degree of mutual surveillance and

inhibitions that modern Americans might find only in an Orwellian nightmare or

maximum security prison.”[71]

An example from a collectivist culture closer to modern times comes from the Sarakatsani

in Greece, where within 48 hours of an incident, groups of Sarakatsani throughout the

region would immediately begin passing judgment on the behaviour of the people involved

and analyse critically whether or not a man displayed manliness in defending his honour.

[72] Strangers in ancient times were viewed as posing a threat to the community and

would need to be checked over to see if they would fit in and subscribe to the community’s

norms.[73] Honour was assumed to exist within your own family, but outside that circle

everybody is presumed as being dishonourable and untrustworthy until proved otherwise.

[74] In such a society, the idea that facts would not be checked is completely ludicrous.

When the Pharisees were out in the wilderness observing Jesus and His disciples, they

were purposefully minding Jesus’ business. The empty tomb would have been checked,

witnesses would have been sought out. A radical divergent group like Christianity that

made all sorts of offensive and absurd claims would have been given especial critical

scrutiny.

What then, of other religions? As a test, we shall analyse Islam, the second most large and

popular religion today after Christianity. I should note, however, that this does not

automatically disprove Islam, although if Christianity can be shown to be true, then it



would mean that all other religions are wrong. Muhammad was born in Axum, Arabia in

the 7th century, an independent region caught between the Byzantine and Sasanian

empires. These two empires were at odds politically, philosophically, and religiously,

whereas Arabia was mostly a collection of independent tribes. Muhammad eventually

secured enough converts to take control of Medina, and spent about 10 years consolidating

his power.[75] Muhammad proceeded to make raids against caravans that were the major

source of finance of his former hometown, Mecca, leading them to negotiate a truce.

Muhammad won members of his old tribe over by giving them positions of power, and

became the most powerful political leader in Arabia.[76] After Muhammad’s death, his

successors then took control of the entire Arabian peninsula, as well as Northern Africa

(including Egypt), Persia, and managed to defeat entirely the Sasanian empire. In time,

Islam took control over Spain for a time, and seriously threatened the Byzantine empire

(resulting in its eventual collapse.) If it had not been for the Spanish Reconquista and the

Crusades, then it is entirely possible that Islam would have seized control over most, if not

all of Europe.

Muhammad himself did not come from a shameful background. Despite being an orphan,

he was raised by his uncle, who became head of his clan. Despite falling out with his home

tribe, Muhammad’s constant military victories would have served to accrue honour.

Although not everything was all good, Muhammad did authorise his troops to fight during

sacred lunar months, permitted the cutting down of palms and married his brother’s ex-

wife, all of which were serious social taboos. Furthermore, Muhammad’s treaty with his

former hometown was humiliating for some Muslims. However, Islam rose in the

confines of Arabia, and nothing about his geographic origins would have put off other

Arabians. Islam did teach resurrection, but it was a final end of time resurrection, like

Judaism, and did not come across Roman aversions to the teaching. Muhammad’s

revelations were also not testable and were not witnessed by anybody else, unlike the

resurrection of Jesus, which had hundreds of witnesses. Islam did face some problems, to

be sure, but there were nowhere near the same level as the problems facing Christianity.

Whilst Islam certainly was an underdog for a time, it managed to spread rapidly thanks to

Muhammad’s brilliant military tactics and strategies, and his ability as a political leader.

Indeed, without Muhammad’s initial victories with the sword, it is doubtful if Islam

would have succeeded at all. The success of Islam is thus more analogous to a skilled

businessman who took significant gambles and yet won. Islam most certainly did not have

to contend with a state as powerful as the Roman Empire who hated everything it stood

for. The origin and spread of Islam is intriguing, and even inspiring, but does not pass the

test of an impossible faith.

No other religion went through and survived what Christianity went through.

Christianity arose in the most hostile environment imaginable. Modern religions, such as

Mormonism and Scientology, did not arise in honour-shame settings, and managed to

overcome persecution by a variety of means not available to Christians. Religions such as



Islam spread via the sword. Christianity succeeds in providing a good historical

hypothesis explaining the facts outlined in this chapter, and succeeds in that it survived

against horrendous social persecution, eventually culminating in the effort of the Roman

Empire to try to stamp out the religion. Where other religions either died or were forced to

change their teachings and beliefs, Christianity remained resolute in staying exactly the

same and yet not only survived but also grew exponentially. Where other religions are

predicated upon mystical, metaphysical claims that are untestable, Christianity makes

specific historical claims that can be and were tested. Where other religions had benefits,

such as the sword, or state sponsorship, Christianity had none, and almost every

disadvantage possible. Why would anybody have believed in it outside of a small band of

loyal fanatics? How was it able to spread beyond the boundaries of its Jewish originators

and spread across Greek and Roman pagan gentiles in such vast numbers? Given the

minimal facts outlined, and the sheer impossibility of Christianity’s survival had it been

false, then we can stand firm and sure that the resurrection hypothesis is not only a viable

alternative, but the only valid hypothesis. Critics and sceptics are forced to raise the

evidentiary bar to stratospheric heights unattainable by any hypothesis, and to rely on

extravagant, ad hoc hypotheses, or combine multiple hypotheses just in order to answer

the challenge. What we see is simply a naturalism of the gaps. If we treat the Gospels as any

other historical documents, and the resurrection hypothesis like any other historical

hypothesis, then we come to the explosive position that Christianity is, in fact, true.

We have surveyed as much information as is humanly possible in this limited space, but

by now it should be obvious how good the evidentiary basis for the resurrection really is,

especially compared to rival hypotheses. It is not the errant claim of someone suffering

from mental health problems, nor is it the gullible claims of the uneducated, but a very

serious hypothesis that demands to be recognised and scrutinised. We are fortunate to live

in an era with access to materials and methods denied to previous generations, and so we

should not squander them. Indeed, a growing body of authors have put the Gospels to the

test and found them reliable. Greater minds than my own have spent far more pages,

getting right into the hardcore details, laying out the facts and utilising modern methods

to analytically scrutinise the evidence and sources we have. What is surprising is the sheer

evidence in favour of the resurrection hypothesis. The conclusion: that Jesus really did

rise from the dead and appear to groups of His followers after His death is simply

inescapable. I think the evidence for this event is just simply too good to be skimped over

for some lame concoction borne from the stubborn minds of those who still cling to their

cherished naturalistic beliefs. Despite being a doubter and sceptic for a long time, and even

an atheist for a while, the evidence for the resurrection repeatedly came back to bite. No

matter how hard I have tried, I cannot see any other explanation: Jesus rose from the dead.

If Christianity had been false, then it should have either died off completely or else

transmogrified its claims to be more socially acceptable.



Notes

1 1 Corinthians 15:13-20, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=1%20Corinthians%2015:13-20&version=NIV (Accessed 12th September 2011)

2 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Crossway, (2008), p207

3 Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, IVP,

(2010) p70-71

4 C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, Cambridge University Press,

(1984), p19

5 Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus Time Line, from Paul Copan and William

Lane Craig, eds., Contending With Christianity’s Critics, B&H Publishing Group, (2009),

p125

6 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, NIV, Biblegateway.com, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=1%20Corinthians%2015:3-5&version=NIV (Accessed 12th September 2011)

7 Byron C. McCane, Where No one Had yet Been Laid: The Shame of Jesus’ Burial, from B.D.

Chilton and C.A. Evans, Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, Brill (1998), p433

8 Byron C. McCane, Where No one Had yet Been Laid: The Shame of Jesus’ Burial, from B.D.

Chilton and C.A. Evans, Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, Brill (1998), p444

9 D. Brendan Nagle and Stanley M. Burstein, The Ancient World: Readings in Social and

Cultural History, Third Edition, Pearson, New Jersey (2006), p314-315

10 D. Brendan Nagle and Stanley M. Burstein, The Ancient World: Readings in Social and

Cultural History, Third Edition, Pearson, New Jersey (2006), p318

11 Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, Fortress, (1977), p22

12 Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of

John, Fortress, (1998), p263-264

13 Deuteronomy 21:23, NCV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Deuteronomy%2021:23&version=NCV (Accessed September 13th 2011)

14 1 Corinthians 1:18, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=1%20Corinthians%201:18&version=NIV (Accessed September 13th 2011)

15 Hebrews 12:2, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Hebrews%2012:2&version=NIV (Accessed September 13th 2011)

16 Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 13, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

(Accessed September 13th 2011)

17 David deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, IVP, (2000), p51

18 Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, Fortress, (1977), p19

19 Robert Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, Yale University Press, (1985),

p68

20 Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus, New York: Viking, (2001), p241


p244

22 Murray Harris, Raised Immortal Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, (1985), p116

23 Gerald O’Collins, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Judson Press, (1973), p31



24 Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: AN Archaeology of Ancient

Personality, John Knox, (1996), p164


p62



28 Bruce Malina and Richard Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, John Knox, (1983), p163

29 Bruce Malina and Richard Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, John Knox, (1983), p189

30 Michael J. Wilkins, Who Did Jesus Think He Was?, from Paul Copan and William Lane

Craig, eds., Contending With Christianity’s Critics, B&H Publishing Group, (2009), p170

31 J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, Kregel,

p43

32 Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus, IVP, (2007), p51

33 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Crossway, (2008), p278-279

34 J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, Kregel,

p47

35 William Lane Craig, Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: Presuppositions and

Pretensions of the Jesus Seminar,

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover1.html (Accessed September

13th 2011)

36 Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus, IVP, (2007), p50

37 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Crossway, (2008), p302

38 Mark 8:27-30, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Mark%208:27-30&version=NIV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

39 John 6:69, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=John%206:69&version=NIV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

40 Matthew 11:3, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Matthew%2011:3&version=NIV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

41 Luke 7:19, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Luke%207:19&version=NIV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

42 Luke 7:22-23, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Luke%207:22-23&version=NIV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

43 Matthew 11:4-6, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Matthew%2011:4-6&version=NIV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

44 Zechariah 9:9-10, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Zechariah%209:9-10&version=NIV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

45 Zechariah 14:21, NCV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Zechariah%2014:21&version=NCV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

46 2 Samuel 7:12-14, NCV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=2%20Samuel%207:12-14&version=NCV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

47 Amos 9:11, NCV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?



search=Amos%209:11&version=NCV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

48 Isaiah 9:6-7, NCV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Isaiah%209:6-7&version=NCV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

49 Malachi 3:1, NCV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Malachi%203:1&version=NCV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

50 Isaiah 40:3, NCV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Isaiah%2040:3&version=NCV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

51 Daniel 7:13-14, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Daniel%207:13-14&version=NIV (Accessed September 14th 2011)

52 Matthew 28:8-10, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=Matthew%2028:8-10&version=NIV (Accessed September 15th 2011)

53 Luke 24:36-43, NIV, Biblegateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?

search=luke%2024:36-43&version=NIV (Accessed September 15th 2011)

54 William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, On The Physical Death of

Jesus Christ, The Journal of the American Medical Association 255 (11, 1986), p1455-1463

55 FP Retief, and L Cilliers, The History and Pathology of Crucifixion, South African

Medical Journal 92 (112, 1993), p938-941

56 Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, 75,

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm (Accessed September 19th 2011)

57 Craig A. Evans, Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus, Journal for the

Study of the Historical Jesus, 3/2 (06, 2005), p233-248. See also: Dale Allison, Resurrecting

Jesus, T and T Clark, (2005), p318 and Byron McCane, Roll Back the Stone, Trinity Press

International, (2003), p11, 14, 47, 54.

58 Byron C. McCane, Where No one Had yet Been Laid: The Shame of Jesus’ Burial, from

B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans, Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, Brill (1998), p431-452

59 This does not stop some for trying to argue otherwise. For example, Richard Carrier

fraudulently appeals to two separate passages in Josephus as if they were referring to the

same thing to try and support his belief that Jesus was only temporarily buried and then

moved to a graveyard reserved for criminals. He uses a passage speaking about

blasphemers, and then tries to link it to another passage discussing unruly and rebellious

children, despite the fact that they are completely separate.

60 Leonard Zuzne and Warren H. Jones, Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary

Phenomena of Behaviour and Experience, Erlbaum Associates, (1982), p135

61 Leonard Zuzne and Warren H. Jones, Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary

Phenomena of Behaviour and Experience, Erlbaum Associates, (1982), p133

62 Leon Festinger and J. M. Carlsmith, Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance,

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, p203-211

63 P. gosling, P. M. Denizeau, and D. Orbele, Denial of Responsibility: a new Mode of

Dissonance Reduction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, p722-733

64 The study in question being: Leon Festinger, H.W. Riecken, and S. Schachter, When

Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the



Destruction of the World, University of Minnesota Press, (1956)

65 Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies, Prometheus Books, (2007)

66 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 2nd Edition, Crossway, (2004), p183 and William

Lane Craig, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?, from Michael Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds.,

Jesus Under Fire, Zondervan, (1996), p163-165. Avalos is not unfamiliar with works either,

as he even references page 186 of the 2nd edition of Reasonable Faith. Such an oversight

thus demonstrates the appalling lows that Avalos is required to stoop to in order to answer

Craig.

67 C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, Cambridge University Press,

(2004), p22

68 This is endorsement can be found on the back cover of the third edition of Reasonable

Faith, Crossway, (2008).

69 For more, see: Elliot Miller and Kenneth Samples, The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic

Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary, Grand Rapids: Baker, (1992), p107-108, 110,114-115,

153-154, 156-157,

70 Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, John Knox, (1983), p183

71 Carlin Barton, Roman Honor, University of California Press, (2001), p21, 22, 23

72 J. K. Campbell, Honour, Family, and Patronage, Oxford University Press, (1964), p39

73 John Pilch and Bruce Malina, Handbook of Biblical Social Values, Hendrickson, (1998),

p115

74 Bruce Malina, The New Testament World, John Knox, (2001), p36-37

75 John Esposito, The Oxford History of Islam, Oxford University Press, (1999), p8

76 John Esposito, The Oxford History of Islam, Oxford University Press, (1999), p10

Original URL:


did jesus rise from the dead_ — religiousyetsane.blogspot

Documents

fromthe dead

question of jesus resurrection

practice of history

comdid jesus rise

history isuncertain

philosophyof history

theirknowledge of history

asleepin christ