Scholars debate more about how Jesus was crucified than whether or not he was crucified.

His resurrection, on the other hand, isn’t really talked about. It’s a religious question, many argue, and not a historical one.

I’d like to challenge that idea. First, some background.

New Testament textual and historical studies have been a booming research field in the last half-dozen or so decades. One of the main reasons for this has been the archaeological findings of the New Testament geographical areas. Whether early manuscripts of the Bible, findings on Jewish culture and practises of the first century and much more, there has been a lot to study and a lot to try and understand. And of course, with the person of Jesus of Nazareth so significant to this time period and the rise of the Christian church so pivotal to world history, it’s really no surprise a lot of attention has been given to understanding the events around these peculiar happenings.

I won’t spend any time looking at the rise of the Christian church right now, though it is relevant to the discussion.

What I want to focus on is an overview of the current scholarship relevant to the resurrection of Jesus.

Five Pieces of Evidence

Let’s start with five things scholars affirm quite unanimously to be historical truths, given multiple independent attestation and other historical criteria agreed upon.

First, we know Jesus of Nazareth died.

It might sound insignificant, but what you might not know is how well attested to the fact of the man’s death is. Multiple Roman and Jewish sources affirm it, as well as the multiple and independent Christian sources we have. The only source ever to outright deny the death of Jesus is Islam, which came over six hundred years later. There is simply no debate among historians here.

Second, Jesus was buried by a man named Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin (a leadership council of sorts). Besides being multiply attested to by independent sources, it’s important to note that no alternate burial story exists (probably because it was less controversial).

Third, there was an empty tomb.

Note we haven’t said that Jesus “rose again” yet, but are simply affirming that the tomb he was placed in was empty.

Of historical note, we see the sources attest to women discovering the empty tomb. Given the insignificance of women’s testimony in that society, it would have been actually embarrassing for the Jewish Christians to include this fact, especially in “selling” the story to fellow Jews and the Greeks they would share it with (scholars call this “embarrassment criteria”). Also very interesting is the Jewish response to the empty tomb: his disciples stole the body! If the tomb wasn’t empty, they would have just pointed to it. Instead, they had to find an explanation for what was an obvious fact.

Fourth, different groups of people experienced post-mortem appearances of Jesus on different occasions.

Again, multiple and independent sources attest to this fact, and an apostolic epistle that we have guarantees it. A letter written by the Apostle Paul about 20-25 years after Jesus’ death attested to over five hundred people seeing Jesus in the Jerusalem area after his supposed resurrection (he writes this because some people in the new church were under the impression that the resurrection wasn’t literally real).

In effect, he was saying that they could go and talk to many of these 500+ witnesses who would still be alive to get their eyewitness accounts for themselves. Such an audacious claim couldn’t have been made if indeed those eyewitnesses weren’t around to confirm, nor would that letter or the Apostle Paul’s story have held any weight either. (You can read this appeal in the book of 1 Corinthians, chapter 15).

Finally, the original disciples came to a sudden and sincere belief that their leader had risen from the dead and were ready to die for it.

This is despite all the many reasons they had to doubt that such a thing would happen.

Jewish theology and Messianic understanding did not permit a crucified Messiah coming back to life, nor did any disciples of executed revolutionists before Jesus go through a similar pattern of martyrdom-embracing belief. It is very remarkable, and a unique and even strange historical phenomenon.

Finding the Best Explanation

So those are five very agreed-upon facts surrounding the death and supposed resurrection of Jesus. Note also that these are not simply what “conservative” or even Christian scholars affirm. Rather, it is the pattern of the vast majority of New Testament scholars to affirm these facts.

A very plausible explanation of these five facts is that Jesus indeed was resurrected from the dead by God, given the following criteria that scholars use: It has great explanatory power and scope, it is plausible given what we know about Jesus’ life and claims; it’s not “ad hoc” or contrived (it only requires one other hypothesis, namely that God exists); AND it easily beats out other explanations. Actually, contemporary scholarship has almost universally rejected all other proposed theories.

Now, you might have guessed it – not all of the scholars believe that Jesus rose from the dead! My understanding is that most take an agnostic position on it, unable yet to give a solid alternate theory. I get it; it’s hard to affirm something with so much religious significance.

Making the Call, Historian or Not

That’s a lot to take in, and we’re really only scratching the surface of a lot of these historical understandings and criteria and so on.

I want to end with a personal story on why I think even an objective historian can look at these facts and still believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

I had the sweet opportunity of taking a Religious Studies class at McMaster University as an elective. Obviously, the program is secular. My professor noted that the resurrection of Jesus has been problematic for historians, because of the religious implications that come with it.

Personally, I think it’s possible for one to hold religious persuasions and still be an objective historian. Can he not say that the best explanation of the evidence is that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead? Does this affirmation necessarily undo his academic integrity or affect all the other work he does?

I think we can (and should be able to) hold religious views while still looking at evidence honestly and objectively. In fact, I think if we cannot look at things objectively while holding on to some kind of worldview, then none of us can actually think or critique objectively!

I say this because we all bring presuppositions and assumptions to the table. This doesn’t mean objectivity is impossible or even difficult; it does mean that things will take some effort and introspection.

You, too, have a decision you have to make confronted with the evidence I’ve put forward. Shall you take an agnostic position? Try and make up your own theory? Or will you investigate further into this person who appears to have risen from the dead?

I hope it is the latter!

Keep thinking.

Corey