There are two words that anyone who holds some sort of controversial belief is going to hear when he expresses his unpopular or unusual position: prove it. We as rational animals want to hold true beliefs, and the way to hold true beliefs is by putting forward logical proofs for positions and testing them to see if our beliefs stand up to scrutiny and that our beliefs are truly rational.
This applies to every aspect of human belief, including Catholicism. When we put forward our controversial and unusual dogmas and doctrines, politely insisting that all must submit their intellect and will to these beliefs, we should expect those two little words to make an appearance. This can prove daunting enough for someone trying to give an apologetic for the social teachings of the Church, such as pro-life and sexual ethics. The task becomes much harder when we aim to tackle the most controversial position that the Church requires us to hold: that a man walked out of His own tomb.
The extreme importance which lies in this doctrine cannot be understated. Christ Himself is recorded as stating that His Resurrection is the only proof that He would give of His authority (Matt. 12:38-41). Further, St. Paul tells us that if Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:17). To sum up the stakes: if Jesus of Nazareth rose, he is the promised Christ of the Jews and God incarnate, He sets us free from the bondage of sin by His death, gives us the hope of life eternal in His resurrection, and He will come again in due time to render to each soul its just rewards; therefore, everybody (including and especially you) ought to acknowledge Him as God and Christ, worship Him, and spend their lives in loving submission to His Will. If Jesus of Nazareth did not rise, then the doctrines of Christianity are false, and everybody (including and especially you) ought to reject it.
With a lot riding on this, it is of the utmost necessity to give convincing and logically sound reasons for the truth of this Doctrine of doctrines.
What is Proof?
Before we begin to give our proofs, we need to answer the obvious prerequisite question: what constitutes proof of this (or any other) proposition? This is probably where most people, including both detractors and defenders, get a lot wrong. It is a common misunderstanding that the only thing that constitutes proof is directly demonstrable evidence, meaning it is immediate and apparent before our senses. Such is the case with arithmetic proofs and evidence in the natural sciences.
Oftentimes, when people say "prove it!" the understanding is that they want some sort of direct demonstration: where's the peer-reviewed study, the scientific experiment, the 40-line-long math equation, etc. which lends credence to your creed?
As tempting as it may be to try and make a direct demonstration, this will not work in the case of the Resurrection. The Resurrection deals at one level with theological and philosophical propositions, and these are often incapable of being proven by direct demonstration. At another level, the Resurrection deals with history, which is also often incapable of being proven by direct demonstration.
During my undergraduate studies, I had a professor who would always say that history is not a science, it is an art. This is the truest statement that can be made about history. Dr. Michael Licona says in his book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
[H]istorians cannot verify the truth of a hypothesis in an absolute sense. Our knowledge of history comes through sources. This means that, to an extent, our only link to the past is through the eyes of someone else, a person who had his or her own opinions and agendas… Historians ancient and modern alike are selective in the material they report… The selectivity of historians goes beyond the events or narratives they choose to report. Historians select data because of their relevancy to the particular historian, and these become evidence for building the historian’s case for a particular hypothesis. (p. 32-34)
With history, we are trying to put together a coherent picture of events that happened in the past. The only way we have access to these events is through disparate documents, and the further back we go the less we have to go off of. Therefore, we have to develop non-empirical systems for the evaluation and interpretation of these documents' historical accuracy and value.
This is one of the many different examples of indirect demonstration. An indirect demonstration is used for not only historical proofs, but also for philosophical proofs, theological proofs, and proofs for everyday interpersonal affairs: we prove philosophical propositions by analogy, theological propositions by interpretations of religious texts and historical developments in tradition and religious thought, and interpersonal affairs through making sense of people's interactions with others (e.g. he loves her because he gave her flowers and told her he loves her).
We say all of this to say that direct demonstration neither can nor will be given for the resurrection, and that is OK. Indirect demonstration is not only much more common, but it is the preferred and only method for the task at hand. Simply being non-empirical does not mean that the method is less capable of giving us an accurate account of the truth.
Extraordinary Claims and Extraordinary Evidence
Before jumping into the actual argument, we need to address the statement that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This standard, posited by Carl Sagan, is an oft-repeated catchphrase of those who disbelieve in the supernatural, and it means exactly what it sounds like: claims for things that are strange and unusual must have evidence whose strength is proportional to the claim's strangeness.
There are three problems with this: first, what constitutes an extraordinary claim? Surely a resurrection would constitute an extraordinary claim. But what about the claim that a rag-tag bunch of thirteen imperial territories routed the largest navy in the world only to become the world's sole superpower less than three hundred years later? Does that constitute an extraordinary claim? What about the claim that the universe once consisted of a point not much smaller than the tip of a pin and rapidly expanded into the vastness we see now? At one point, that was considered an extraordinary claim, but now it's considered the default cosmological theory (and it didn't take "extraordinary evidence" to make it that way).
Second, what constitutes extraordinary evidence? Does "extraordinary" mean irrefutable or undeniable evidence? If so, no such evidence exists. There is nothing so cogent, so airtight, so demonstrably true that it cannot be denied. No proposition of science, no matter how widely accepted and well-supported, will fail to have skeptics and detractors. No theory of history or philosophy will have an argument so sound that nobody can doubt it. People can deny all sorts of things, and no theory is free from holes and difficult data points.
Not only this, but "extraordinary" evidence is never necessary to prove a proposition: only good evidence is. When Fr. Georges Lamaître proposed the Big Bang, it didn't take "extraordinary" evidence to prove it. It took ordinary evidence (namely, the application of Einstein's relativity to cosmology and the discovery of Hubble's Law) to allow Big Bang cosmology to take primacy over Steady-State cosmology.
Thus, in order to prove the proposition that the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth occurred, we need not produce "extraordinary evidence," but only strong and cogent reasons for why the event is likely to have occurred.
Minimal Facts Approach
The approach to proving the Resurrection discussed here is the Minimal Facts approach developed by New Testament scholar and philosophy professor Dr. Gary Habermas. Habermas' approach focuses on the five facts surrounding the death of Jesus which are agreed upon by the vast majority of scholars, including skeptics. From here, Habermas develops a historical theory that most coherently and consistently explains all five facts.
The five facts are as follows:
Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate
The Apostles had real experiences which they interpreted as appearances of the resurrected Christ
The Apostle's lives were transformed by these appearances to the point that they were willing to die for their belief in the Resurrection (and at least some of them did die for it)
The belief in the Resurrection was taught very soon after the crucifixion of Jesus
Paul of Tarsus, a self-proclaimed persecutor of Christians, converted to Christianity after seeing what he interpreted as a mystical vision of the resurrected Christ (and he was willing to and almost certainly did die for this belief).
Before we get into unpacking the five facts, we need to address an obvious objection: how can bodily resurrection be a coherent and consistent explanation for any events? Shouldn't we just dismiss the claims of resurrection because they are based in the supernatural?
No, we should not dismiss the resurrection hypothesis prima facie. To do so would be to admit a bias against the supernatural in favour of the natural when the argument is precisely over whether or not a supernatural event occurred. In other words, to deny the supernatural from the start would be to circumvent the entire argument to the benefit of one of the sides in the debate. We don't have to accept resurrection if there's no good reason to, but we can't assume that there's no reason for it right out of the gate.
We also cannot dismiss the resurrection hypothesis because it is the one posed by the Apostles, who are our main sources. In other words, if we dismiss the resurrection as a possibility, we are not even giving the claims of the men upon whose testimony we are primarily relying a fair shake. We have to investigate this claim and cannot just toss it to the side. This is a courtesy that we owe to any investigation of miracle claimants, including those from competing religions.
It is important to note that we are not aiming at a thorough treatment of the topic, but a brief overview. God willing, each fact can be treated with more depth in separate posts later.
The Argument
As stated above, the Minimal Facts argument in favour of the Resurrection is simply stated as 1) there are five facts surrounding the crucifixion and establishment of the Christian movement upon which nearly all scholars regardless of background agree are historical, 2) we can, should, and must look to these facts to determine the most plausible explanation for the occurrences of these facts, and 3) the most plausible explanation for these facts is that Christ rose bodily from the dead. Therefore, making the argument requires looking at each fact, formulating hypotheses, and then evaluating each hypothesis for its explanatory power.
FACT ONE: Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by crucifixion by Pontius Pilate
Of all of the facts, this one is the least controversial and the most widely attested to. The Crucifixion is recorded in all four Gospels, is mentioned in Acts, frequently referenced in the writings of St. Paul, and is spoken of by the Apostolic Fathers, specifically in 1 Clement, Polycarp, and the Epistle of Barnabas. Outside of the New Testament, Tacitus records that Christ was executed by Pilate (though he doesn't specify that Christ was crucified) in Annals 15:44, and Josephus mentions Christ twice: once in passing as the brother of St. James in Antiquities 20:9:1, and again more extensively in the Testimonium Flavianum (though this reference is controversial).
New Testament scholar James Dunn says that the Crucifixion "rank[s] so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" (Remembering Jesus p. 339), while Bart Ehrman has said that the crucifixion is the most certain fact that we can know about the life of Christ and has debated many of his fellow-atheist scholars on the subject. To deny that Christ died by crucifixion is the historiographical equivalent of being a flat-earther.
FACT TWO: The Apostles had real experiences which they interpreted as appearances of the resurrected Christ
All scholars agree that the earliest Christian Creed, dating back to the first century and the Apostolic Age, is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
This creed is generally broken down into three parts:
v. 3b-5a: Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas,
v. 5b-7: then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
v. 8: Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
The degree to which scholars agree that these parts constitute the earliest oral tradition varies. The least controversial portion is the first portion, which states that Christ died, was buried, rose again, and appeared to St. Peter. The second portion, detailing the appearance to the twelve, the five hundred, St. James, and the rest of the Apostles is the subject of debate. Scholars are unclear if this is part of the original tradition present in v. 3b-5a, or if this is a later (relatively speaking) creed that is joined with the original by St. Paul for the purposes of the Epistle. The final part, Christ's appearance to St. Paul, is agreed to be an addition by St. Paul and not an original part of this tradition, likely because St. Paul's conversion hadn't happened by the time the original tradition was formulated and handed down.
The first thing to note is that the creed is multiply attested to within other Christian texts:
Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, he was buried, and he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures: 1 Cor. 15:3-4, Mt. 27:45-28:20, Mk. 15:36-16:7, Lk. 23:26-24:12, Jn. 19:16-20:18, Acts 13:28-31
He appeared to Cephas: Mk. 16:7, Lk. 24:34
He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time: No explicit references. Possible candidates include Mt. 28:16-17, Lk. 24:33-53, Acts 1:6-11
He appeared to James: None. Recounted in the Gospel of the Hebrews
He appeared to Paul: Acts 9:3-20, Acts 22:6-16, Acts 26:12-18, 1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:11-19
As we can see, the only things which are not explicitly mentioned in other reliable texts are the appearance to five hundred and to St. James. However, this Creed is the earliest Christian source we have and predates the other attestations. The latest that scholars will date the earliest portion of this creed is 5 years following the death of Christ and it is considered probable that it originates with the Jerusalem community (i.e., the original Apostles). It, in itself, is a source for these claims which are not otherwise attested to. All of this is important because it shows that the earliest Apostles preached the Resurrection of Christ and that they did so very soon after the death of Christ.
To clarify, this creed dating no later than five years after Christ's death does not mean that the Apostles did not believe in the Resurrection until five years after the fact. It means that within five years maximum (perhaps closer to three years) they had been believing it and teaching it so much that they had developed a creed that they would recite when they presented the teaching to other Christians, to catechumens, and to non-believers. This being the case, we can conclude that the Apostles really believed that Christ rose from the dead and that they believed that they saw Him.
This is often countered by the claim of mass hallucination: the Apostles were grief-stricken and thus imagined they saw Jesus. There are a few reasons this is impossible, but the biggest reason is very simple: if the Resurrection was nothing more than a hallucination, then the body of Christ corrupting in the tomb would have at least dissuaded others from believing them, if ti wouldn't snap them back to reality.
FACT THREE: The Apostle’s Lives Were Transformed as a Result and They Became Willing to Die for Their Beliefs (and at Least Some of Them Did)
This is the fact that is admittedly the fuzziest, but there is still wide agreement on this fact to some degree or another and is only fuzzy in regard to its details. We know with near certainty that Ss. Peter and Paul were martyred and that Ss. James the Greater and James of Jerusalem were very probably martyred. We have varying degrees of confidence that Ss. Andrew and Thomas were martyred. We don't have a lot of historical evidence for the fates of the rest of the Apostles. However, what is crucial here is not that they were martyred, or even that they were persecuted (which is much more certain): what is crucial is that they were willing to be persecuted for the faith.
Let us touch upon the martyrdoms of Ss. Peter and Paul. Their martyrdoms are very well attested to in the historical data and cannot be reasonably doubted. St. Peter's martyrdom is alluded to in St. John 21:18-19 and explicitly described in the Acts of Peter. Both Ss. Peter and Paul's martyrdoms are attested to in 1 Clement 5-6, Polycarp's To the Philippians 6, Tertullian's Prescription against Heretics 26, and Ignatius' To the Ephesians 12. St. Peter is traditionally held to have been crucified upside down in Rome and St. Paul is held to have been beheaded in Rome, but the specific method of execution is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Ss. Peter and Paul were martyred for preaching the Resurrection.
St. James the Just's martyrdom is referenced in Acts 12:1-2, having been beheaded in Jerusalem. This is the only reference we know of, but its attestation is early (60-85 AD) and it is consistent with Christian tradition. St. James of Jerusalem (held by this author to be James the Lesser) is mentioned by Josephus as being stoned to death, and Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus also hold that he was martyred, however they both name the method as being thrown from the Temple and clubbed to death.
The records of Ss. Andrew and Thomas' martyrdoms are recorded late, but Christian tradition is nearly unanimous that St. Andrew was crucified and St. Thomas was speared to death in India. The tradition is inconsistent with the rest of the Apostles, but it is unanimous in that they were all martyred with the exception of St. John who is held to have died peacefully on the Isle of Patmos, and St. Jude who is held by a few to have also died peacefully (though this is not widely held and he is largely considered to have been martyred as well).
As was stated above, what is important with the fates of the Apostles is not that they were martyred, although this can be shown with varying levels of certainty. What is important is that they were willing to suffer persecution and even death for their claims to have beheld the risen Lord, and this is not controversial. The reason this is important is that people do not suffer and die for what they believe to be false.
If the Apostles were lying, or at least doubtful, it is highly unlikely that they would be willing to undergo persecution, let alone death, for their claims. Thus, the Apostles genuinely and fervently believed what they taught, and nothing would dissuade them from that belief. This cannot be easily dismissed, nor can it be compared to contemporary martyrs who die for their beliefs. The difference between the Apostles and post-Apostolic Age martyrs is that subsequent martyrs died for what they believed on someone else's word. The Apostles died for what they claimed to have seen with their own eyes.
Some will counter this by saying that the Apostles may not have been given an opportunity to recant their faith, and would have to avoid persecution. This is unlikely because accounts of Christian martyrdoms frequently show the faithful being given an opportunity to recant by Roman officials, either by denying their faith or by practicing idolatry. It is unlikely that the Apostles would have been denied this opportunity, and more unlikely that, had they taken this opportunity, it would have gone without being circulated by the enemies of the Church. However, there are no records of the Apostles ever denying their faith, either publicly or privately.
With the records we have, the longstanding policy of Romans allowing for Christians to recant their faith, and the lack of evidence that the Apostles did recant their faith, we can be sure that the Apostles were willing to and did suffer for their beliefs, and this grants credibility to their belief.
FACT FOUR: All Of This Was Taught Early, Very Soon After the Crucifixion
This is simple: the earliest creed dates no more than five years after the crucifixion and originates with the Apostles. The entire New Testament was written within 70 years after the Passion. St. Paul converted within six years after Christ's death. This is too early for the belief in the Resurrection to be a legend that developed over time.
FACT FIVE: St. Paul Claimed to Have Seen the Risen Christ and Converted to Christianity After Having Previously Persecuted Christians
This fact, like the others, is uncontroversial: St. Paul was an ardent persecutor of Christians before having a sudden conversion and going on to becoming the most important Apostle in the early Church, save only St. Peter.
There are several essential features of this fact that greatly aid our argument. St. Paul's conversion tells us that he had what he perceived to be a real experience of something which changed him from thinking that Jesus of Nazareth was a false Messiah claimant whose followers were leading the nation of Israel into sin, to believing that Jesus of Nazareth was not only the Messiah, but that He gloriously Rose from the dead, that He was, is, and ever shall be God (cf. Phil. 2:5-11), and the only way to please God is to worship this Jesus fellow. Needless to say, something extreme had to happen to St. Paul.
As we stated above, St. Paul believed this enough to die for it, evidenced by the fact that he did eventually die for it. Not only this, but St. Paul went from someone with status and favour among the Pharisees of the Sanhedrin to the newest public enemy among Jewish and pagan authorities alike. He went from being an enforcer for the High Court of the Jews to being constantly in an out of prison throughout the Roman Empire. As one of the few lettered men of the time period, after his conversion, he became an impoverished traveling preacher who built tents to sustain himself. St. Paul suffered in terms of material life and wealth by following Christ. Any perceived benefits St. Paul had post-conversion were purely of a religious and spiritual nature.
Another essential element is that this gives us an insight into what the early Christians meant when they talked about the Resurrection of Christ. St. Paul taught a physical resurrection of the body at the end of times: all souls of the dead will be united to their bodies when Christ returns in glory (1 Cor. 15). He bases this on the fact that Christ rose bodily from the dead, and even makes the point that if the dead do not and will not rise at the end of days, Christ also did not rise, and the faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:16-17). The important issue here is that St. Paul did not believe in a nebulous, "spiritual" resurrection of all men at the end of time because he did not believe in a "spiritual" resurrection of Christ. Rather, he believed in a physical, bodily resurrection of the flesh of Christ, as well as a supernatural glorification of that flesh. St. Paul didn't think he saw a ghost. He thought he saw a once-dead man speak to him and strike him blind.
This is especially difficult for the hallucination argument to explain away: why would someone who thinks that Christ was a nefarious false prophet have a hallucination of Him gloriously resurrected?
Conclusion
As shown above, there are several objections to this argument, and this should be no surprise. This is not an argument over philosophy, nor is it even an argument over theology. This argument aims to prove with a high degree of probability that, as an historical fact, a man died and then stopped being dead. However, these deserve their own articles in order to explain and refute each argument, and so the brief treatment given above will have to suffice for now.
One problem that is frequently had when one discovers a new argument that is really convincing is that he can tend to view it as irrefutable and something that, once he relates it to any detractors, will either convert them to his mindset on the spot or else will melt their faces off in a similar way to how the Ark of the Covenant melted the faces off of Major Toht and his Nazis comrades.
It is important to remember that people are not computers. Changing minds is not as simple as inputting the right formulae, and true conversion is just as much, if not more, about changing hearts as it is about changing minds. It is good to have arguments because true belief must be founded upon reason. However, arguments are tertiary behind prayer and example. You can argue flawlessly with someone who does not believe, but if you are not praying for him and showing the love of Christ to him in whatever way that you are called to, he probably won't convert (at least not because of you).
All of this is to say that arguments are good, but we should not remain in the arena of abstraction in which argumentation operates. Christ rose from the dead. While arguing for that belief is important, and even commanded by St. Peter (1 Pt. 3:15-16), living as if you truly believe that fact is much more important. With that, let us keep the holy Feast, for Christ our paschal lamb has been sacrificed and has triumphed over death.
God bless and keep you during this blessed Season of Easter.
Comments