The Resurrection of Jesus

Historical Facts 1) Jesus died by crucifixion. This is accepted by almost all scholars. John McIntyre: "Even those scholars and critics who have been moved to depart from almost everything else within the historical content of Christ's presence on earth have found it impossible to think away the factuality of the death of Christ." Gerd Ludemann: "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." John Dominic Crossan: "[There is not the] slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus' crucifixion under Pontius Pilate." "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be." Geza Vermes: "The passion of Jesus is part of history." Paula Fredriksen: "The single most solid fact about Jesus' life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists, namely, crucifixion." Bart Ehrman: "One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea Pontius Pilate." 2) Shortly after Jesus' crucifixion, the disciples had experiences that they believed were of the risen Jesus. This is accepted by almost all scholars. Paula Fredriksen: "The disciples' conviction that they had seen the Risen Christ... [is part of] historical bedrock, facts known past doubting." E.P. Sanders: "That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact." A.J.M. Wedderburn: "It is an indubitable historical datum that sometime, somehow the disciples came to believe that they had seen the risen Jesus." Bart Ehrman: "Why, then, did some of the disciples claim to see Jesus alive after his crucifixion? I don't doubt at all that some disciples claimed this. We don't have any of their written testimony, but Paul, writing about twenty-five years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I don't think he is making it up." Gary Habermas has cataloged the opinions of hundreds of scholars concerning this consensus, including Baggett, Borg, Braaten, Carnley, Charlesworth, Craffert, Dunn, Lapide, Ludemann, Montefiore, Vermes, Viney, and Wright. 3) Within a few years of Jesus' crucifixion, Paul had an experience which he believed to be of the risen Jesus and which led to his conversion. This is accepted by almost all scholars. (Marxsen, Crossan, and Ludemann are all skeptical of what happened, but their quotes here show they accepted that Paul had such an experience.) W. Marxsen: "One can say with some certainty that Paul understood the resurrection of Jesus as having happened through an act of God. To use our term, he regarded it as an event. " John Dominic Crossan and J.L. Reed: "To take seriously Paul's claim to have seen the risen Jesus, we suggest that his inaugural vision was of Jesus's body simultaneously wounded and glorified... we bracket that blinded-by-light sequence and imagine instead a vision in which Paul both sees and hears Jesus as the resurrected Christ." Gerd Ludemann: "The objectivity that his account assigned to the event in no way impugns the fact that his report details a subjective rather than an objective occurence." Bart Ehrman: "There is no doubt that [Paul] believed that he saw Jesus' real but glorified body raised from the dead." The majority of scholars accept these three claims as historical facts. Weighing the RH 1. Plausibility. Con argues that the RH is not plausible since it is a supernatural event. An historian cannot rule upon the veracity of supernaturalism. That is left to other fields of knowledge, such as philosophy. A historian must try to set aside all biases and presuppositions and simply try to find out what happened in history. Without presupposing nor a priori excluding supernaturalism, a person trying to decide as to the historical nature of a past event should select the best hypothesis for the historical facts. One's worldview must be set aside as best as possible when weighing history. According to Ben Meyer, the historian who allows his presuppositions (such as anti-supernaturalism) into the equation "finds himself in a situation which does not allow him, as historian, to come to grips with history, for he cannot know whether or not the possibility he dutifully omits to consider offers the best account of a given constellation of data." A historian, acting only as a historian, cannot a priori exclude supernaturalism. (Neither can they presuppose it.) Con also asks about the background knowledge concerning Jesus. Jesus was known to have performed acts that many regarded as miracles. C.A. Evans: "Scholarship has now moved past its preoccupation with demythologization. The miracle stories are now treated seriously and are widely accepted by Jesus scholars as deriving from Jesus' ministry." E.P. Sanders: "[Of six] almost indisputable facts, [the second is that Jesus] was a Galilean preacher and healer." "Jesus performed miracles." Rudolf Bultmann: "There can be no doubt that Jesus did the kinds of deeds which were miracles to his mind and to the minds of his contemporaries." M. Borg: There are "very strong" reasons to believe Jesus was a miracle worker of some sort. John Dominic Crossan: "Jesus was both an exorcist and a healer." Robert Funk: One of the "basic facts" was he was a "charismatic healer and exorcist." Graham Twelftree: "There is now almost unanimous agreement among Jesus questers that the historical Jesus performed mighty works." "If we can be certain of anything about the historical Jesus it is that his contemporaries considered him to have performed wonders or miracles." "There is hardly any aspect of the life of the historical Jesus which is so well and widely attested as that he conducted unparalleled wonders." John Meier: "The miracle traditions about Jesus' public ministry are already so widely attested in various sources and literary forms by the end of the first Christian generation that total fabrication by the early church is, practically speaking, impossible." Jesus himself believed he had been chosen by God as an eschatological agent to bring in a new kingdom. G. Theissen and A Merz: "There is also a consensus that the 'honorific titles' which the historical Jesus possibly used to express his status must have come from Jewish tradition. The titles 'Son of Man' and 'Messiah' in particular arise in connection with the historical Jesus... Finally, there is a consensus that Jesus had a sense of eschatological authority. He saw the dawn of a new world in his actions." Twelftree, Meier, Dunn, Sanders, and Ehrman also attest to the consensus. Given this background knowledge, the RH is plausible. Given that a historian must bracket their worldview, the supernatural cannot be disqualified a priori. Therefore it is not implausible. 2. Explanatory scope. Con did not address this. The RH passes this criterion as explained above. 3. Explanatory power. Con did not address this. The RH passes this criterion as explained above. 4. Less ad hoc. Con again reiterates that because the RH involves the supernatural it is ad hoc. I have addressed this above already. Only if one has a priori presuppositions against the supernatural can one rule out the supernatural. We are not here to determine the veracity of the supernatural, but which hypothesis best explains the facts, according to historical criteria. Someone determining a historical event cannot rule on the supernatural but must be open to all possibilities. One cannot presuppose nor a priori negate the supernatural. The RH passes the criterion for historical events and explains the known facts. Con also agreed to the burden of arguing that Jesus' resurrection is not the best hypothesis or that it plainly did not happen. Con has yet to make their case.