In 1996 the rock band U2 released a song that seemed to ask some tough questions about the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ. It was called \u201cWake Up Dead Man.\u201d For some long-time U2 fans, this came as a bit of a shock. They\u2019d come to know of U2\u2019s song writers, Bono and the Edge, as conscious Christians. What was this, a challenge to the very cornerstone of the Christian faith? Other U2 fans were not so surprised. While they knew these lyricists to be self-avowed and vocal Christians, they also knew that U2 was never the sort of artists who accepted religious dogma without thoughtful reflection. They\u2019d always been the sort of artists who investigated and probed deeply into the mysteries of the faith. Simple answers never satisfied them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this way they fall right into a long-standing tradition of people inquiring into what the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth means. And to get to that meaning, historians, philosophers, poets, artists, theologians, writers, singers, and even politicians have wondered what really happened on that first Easter Sunday. The story itself is simple: Jesus of Nazareth was executed by crucifixion and then came back to life three days later; his followers saw him, proclaimed he was alive wherever they went, and a new religion was founded. But was Jesus really<\/em> resurrected? If so, how<\/em>? If not, what then did<\/em> happen? And what does<\/em> it all mean?<\/p>\n\n\n\n My goal here is to lay out some of the competing theories and discuss them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before theologians or philosophers can weigh in on the meaning of the resurrection, it is important that historians<\/em> get the story right. What happened on that Sunday morning? Where did this story about Jesus of Nazareth\u2019s resurrection come from? Christians claim that he died a death that paid for their sins, and that because God raised him back to life <\/em>three days later, he continues to live and has the power to give them eternal life also.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, did Jesus come back to life? Christians claim that this happened in history<\/em>. Therefore, it is open to historical investigation. \u201cEvery conviction has the right to try to prove itself from history and to overcome its opponents on this basis.\u201d[1]<\/a><\/sup> And to that we now turn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The methods employed by historians are simple (even if carrying out the methods to satisfactory ends isn\u2019t). Historiography begins by getting the known, unassailable facts on the table. What do we absolutely<\/em> know, that no one disagrees with? Then, the facts have to be interpreted. The theory able to make the most logical and consistent sense of those facts, without ignoring any nor exaggerating any, is the theory that wins the day. That will be the theory accepted by historians as the most plausible account of the historical events in question. But all theories are open to testing. And insofar that a theory neglects any piece of evidence, a new theory is liable to push it over. Then that<\/em> theory is open to testing. Such is the way of historiography. Facts are known, theories are made, and conclusions are tested. That\u2019s what we\u2019ll do today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We\u2019ll begin with the pieces of evidence that are attested (not only in Christian texts, but in non-Christian sources as well) and are accepted as established verifiable facts by Christians, skeptics, and other religion bodies alike. These are the bare bones skeleton of the first century events concerning Jesus, his life and death, and his followers. These are the pieces everyone has <\/em>to play with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are twelve facts I want to lay on the table; I\u2019ve tried to organize them under three headings for the sake of memory. They are<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) Facts about Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples (which were his closest followers during his life);<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) Facts about the origins of the resurrection story (that is, what we know about where the story <\/em>first came from and how it developed and spread); and<\/p>\n\n\n\n (3) Facts about early Christian beliefs (the teachings of the first generation of Christians).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n So, to begin, some facts about Jesus and his disciples.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jesus lived in first-century Palestine. There was a brief time in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when it was argued that the historical person, Jesus of Nazareth, was entirely fictional. His life and times were completely made up. That theory has run its course. It\u2019s had its 15 minutes of fame. There is simply too much evidence (not only from Christian sources, but from Greco-Roman and Jewish sources alike)[2]<\/a><\/sup> that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, that he traveled and preached, and that he accrued a following.[3]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Jesus and his followers were Jewish.[4]<\/a><\/sup> This may go without saying, but again this the essential framework; no element can be overlooked.[5]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Jesus was tried and killed by Roman crucifixion.[6]<\/a><\/sup> Again, not only the Christian sources, but early Greco-Roman and Jewish sources attest to this fact.[7]<\/a><\/sup> It is important for context. Crucifixion carried with it major negative social stigmas[8]<\/a><\/sup> No one wanted to be associated with a crucified man. Jews specifically knew that \u201ca crucified messiah was a failed messiah.\u201d[9]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Jesus died alone. The significance of this is often overlooked. There were many Jewish messianic movements in first-century Palestine where Jesus lived.[10]<\/a><\/sup> And as in the case of Jesus, they were all suppressed by Roman violence.[11]<\/a><\/sup> The alleged messiahs were all killed. Their followers then had three options: die with the \u201cmessiah\u201d (as many did whether they chose to or not), or disband and give up the dream, or anoint a new \u201cmessiah\u201d to take the previous one\u2019s place. Jesus\u2019s followers did not die with him. And this brings me to the next fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jesus\u2019s followers didn\u2019t die, nor did they disband. But they carried on without replacing Jesus with another \u201cmessiah.\u201d Even the most famous early Christian leaders, Peter, Paul, John, and James were never hailed as the new \u201cmessiahs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moving on, how did the story itself come about and what were its effects? Here are the facts about the origins of the resurrection story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The existence of a story about Jesus\u2019s resurrection<\/em> is an historical fact. The story was told<\/em>. And it began immediately after Jesus\u2019s death\u2014within two months\u2014by people who claimed to have seen<\/em> the resurrected Jesus. While some would argue that the fully developed story was still years off, the beginning of the story was immediate. Had Jesus\u2019s followers waited too long to tell their story, the charismatic, yet tragically crucified, Galilean preacher would have been forgotten, and any claims to their eyewitness testimony seriously called into doubt.[12]<\/a><\/sup> Even the most critical scholars agree that the first Christian history to be written, called The Acts of the Apostles, is accurate in its basic account of the events in Jerusalem 40 days after Jesus\u2019s death.[13]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n The story is said, according to the Christians themselves, to have been started by women. This may seem irrelevant, but sadly in first-century Palestinian culture women were less trusted than men. They could testify in court, but only as a last resort. They were thought to be easily swayed, too emotional, irrational, and less intelligent than men. We know today that this is entirely foolish, but that was the view of women at that time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After the women gave their report, the very men who were with Jesus during his life carried the story further in Jerusalem and abroad. These men were called his \u201cdisciples.\u201d Again, even the most skeptical scholars recognize the reliability of the early Christian history book, the Acts of the Apostles, on this point: Jesus\u2019s disciples were the proponents of the resurrection story.[14]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n The story of Jesus\u2019s resurrection became popular, and a new religious movement was off. Again, another obvious point, but one that should not be overlooked. Jesus looked defeated. As wrote earlier, no one in the ancient world wanted to follow a crucified man. But, people came to believe the story of Jesus\u2019s resurrection, and it became the primary Christian doctrine <\/em>on which the Church grew in any given area. Wherever Christians went, when they told the story of Jesus of Nazareth, his resurrection was central and primary to their message.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Christianity overtook and outlasted the very Roman Empire that first tried to stamp out the new religion. During the early years of the movement, and throughout the next 250 years, Christians faced persecution in the form of social marginalization, severe torture, and often execution.[15]<\/a><\/sup> Nonetheless, it grew and grew. Eventually it took over and outlived the very empire that tried to destroy it. And note this: Constantine did not <\/em>make Christianity popular. It already was popular by the fourth century; he just got in on the action for political expediency.[16]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the beliefs and teachings of the first generation of Christians will be helpful here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is worth mentioning why this story was so important to the Christians. They told it everywhere they went and weren\u2019t willing to acquiesce in the face of persecution.[17]<\/a><\/sup> It\u2019s easy to imagine that it might have been simpler for Christians to spread Jesus\u2019s teachings on ethics and love without<\/em> such a difficult and incredible story attached to it.[18]<\/a><\/sup> First-century people were not stupid: they knew dead people stayed dead. Therefore, the \u201ccause of Jesus\u201d may not have been laughed at[19]<\/a><\/sup> if it didn\u2019t have this strange resurrection story attached to it. But it was important enough for Christians to not only mention, but to emphasize. Why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the earliest Christian writings we have, called Paul\u2019s First Letter to the Corinthians, tells us. Paul was one of the first Christian missionaries; he too claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. In the fifteenth chapter of that letter, Paul tells us \u201cIf Christ is not risen, [then] your faith is futile, [and] you are still in your sins\u201d (I Cor 15:17\u201320)! Jesus\u2019s resurrection is only the second part of the story. Jesus\u2019s death<\/em> came first. And the Christians believed that that death was the means by which they were forgiven of all their misdeeds before God. Jesus\u2019s died to take the penalty for their<\/em> wrongs. And the resurrection was proof of this. So if Jesus wasn\u2019t raised, then there was no validation for his death. It was just a normal death like anyone else\u2019s. It had no saving or forgiving power; no cosmic consequence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Paul goes on to say \u201cThen also those who have [died believing in Christ] have perished [for good]\u201d (1 Cor. 15:18). That is, if Jesus wasn\u2019t raised to eternal life, neither will anyone else. When someone dies, that\u2019s it\u2014no eternal life. This led Paul to conclude that \u201cIf in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men [to be] most piti[ed]\u201d (1 Cor. 15:19). That is, if Jesus makes promises to give eternal life, and he can\u2019t deliver on these promises, then Christians are all fools, giving up things in this world for nothing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So we see that Jesus\u2019s resurrection was the linchpin for early Christians in the way they thought about sin, forgiveness, eternal life, and why it\u2019s worth following Jesus. These things were precious to them and, in their minds, established by Jesus\u2019s resurrection\u2014the loadstar of all Christian doctrine. The entire Christian religion stands or falls on Jesus\u2019s resurrection. Without it they knew their entire religion and all they hoped for was for naught.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lastly in the new movement, Jesus\u2019s followers worshiped him. This is quite amazing because the first Christians were Jews<\/em> who heard early and often throughout their lives that there is one<\/em> God and one<\/em> God only, and that no part of creation (like a man) should ever <\/em>be worshipped.[20]<\/a><\/sup> It is the greatest of sins deserving of nothing less than eternal condemnation. Yet, there they were: a group of predominantly Jewish men and women worshipping Jesus after his death.[21]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Religious traditions are the hardest to change. So something massive <\/em>must have happened to convince the first Christians, many (most?) of whom were Jewish, to move the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. In the early church, Sunday became the day that Christians would gather together for worship (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10), a practice that continues today. What\u2019s the best explanation that fits this massive religious change? The disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead on the morning of that First Easter Sunday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, how do we make sense of these things? Many Christians will tell you that it\u2019s all true, and the thing to do is believe it. But it\u2019s not that simple. To believe that one man\u2019s death had such cosmic consequence and that he later came back to life is a lot to swallow, to say the least. Different theories, aside from a literal bodily resurrection, have been proposed. I think the best way to navigate through them is to consider first \u201cWhat did the disciples think they were proclaiming?\u201d and then to ask \u201cHow did they come to think that?\u201d Lets walk through possible some options.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, what did the disciples think they were saying? It has been suggested that the disciples were making the whole thing up. It was a lie, a hoax. They stole the body from the tomb were Jesus was laid, buried him somewhere else where no one could find him, and said \u201cLook! His tomb is empty. We have seen him. He is alive.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why would they do this? Well, it certainly wasn\u2019t for power. They saw what happened to their leader, and they knew they would be next should the Romans not like the fact that the doctrines of the man they just executed are continuing in his followers. In other words, to identify with Jesus in those days was very dangerous indeed! And most of them were later killed for just that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It wasn\u2019t for money. They lived very poor lives, and we have no accounts of any of them throwing in the towel at any time because the dividends were not coming in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maybe they had idealistic political goals. We know that many people willingly accept poverty and repudiation, and risk their necks for their political ideals.[22]<\/a><\/sup> We know Jesus criticized the Jerusalem leadership. Maybe Jesus\u2019s followers were zealously encouraged by such.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This theory is not nearly as popular as it once was. While it makes some sense of some of the facts, it is very shaky upon further consideration. For example, note the fact I mentioned above about Jesus\u2019s disciples not dying with him. Why did Jesus die alone? His disciples all abandoned him when he was arrested! We know this from their own writings\u2014not the sort of embarrassing thing you\u2019d say about yourself if you\u2019re trying to persuade others that you are the spokesperson of the new political movement. Combine that with the fact above that Jesus\u2019s story was proclaimed by those who followed him . This theory doesn\u2019t explain how the disciples could have become so bold whereas weeks earlier, when they had their chance to fight, they fled. You\u2019d think they\u2019d be less<\/em> courageous without their leader (crucified at that). Consider also the fact that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection. If the entire story was fabricated, why did the disciples place women at the tomb to first discover Jesus was raised? Remember, women were generally considered unreliable witnesses. That would be like betting all your chips with a bluff<\/em> and only a pair of twos<\/em> in your hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, it is hard to believe that the authors of the books (or at least the tradition behind the books) that have given shape to the entire western ethical system were really liars and thieves themselves. Liars and thieves usually don\u2019t write things like \u201cBear one another\u2019s burdens\u201d (Gal. 6:2) or \u201cLook out for the needs of others, and consider others more important than yourselves\u201d (Phil. 2:3) or \u201cLove one another fervently with a pure heart\u201d (1 Pet. 1:22) or \u201cLove your enemies<\/em> and pray for those who do you harm\u201d (Luke 6:27\u201336) and \u201cDo not seek revenge\u201d (Rom. 12:19). The list goes on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The theory that is probably the most popular is as follows: The disciples never meant that Jesus literally rose bodily from the dead. Instead, they meant only that he had risen spiritually. That is to say, their language about Jesus\u2019s resurrection was a metaphor for great theological and existential truths.[23]<\/a><\/sup> They were speaking about their own<\/em> experience, if even a psychological experience of Jesus himself after his death. He rose in their hearts. And they had a new self-awareness.[24]<\/a><\/sup> Then he continued to live in the disciples\u2019 mission as they spread his teachings. In some early Christian texts it might appear this way. Paul spoke of Christians receiving a type of resurrection life when they put their faith and trust in Jesus (Romans 6).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is clear, though, that Jesus\u2019s biographies speak of a bodily resurrection. Therefore, this theory argues that these biographies were written anywhere from thirty to forty (or more) years after Jesus\u2019s life. This is enough time for a myth to develop. Therefore, what began as a metaphor, in say Paul\u2019s writings, had morphed into a myth and a legend that may or may not have intended to teach of a literal bodily resurrection. At any rate, the readers of these biographies would have known that they were myths, not an attempt at writing true history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So the theory goes like this: Paul and other Christians at first spoke only of a spiritual or metaphorical resurrection but knew full well that Jesus\u2019s body was still quite dead. Later Christians developed that theme into a metaphor and spoke of a \u201cbodily\u201d resurrection, but only in a mythical manner. After all, there are numerous stories from the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian classics (Oedipus, Hercules, Romulus, Osiris, etc.) of divine figures dying and rising and receiving worship thereafter. The Christians, it appears, have taken a page out of the pagans\u2019 religious traditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This one surely is attractive. It makes a lot of sense of the data, and doesn\u2019t require us to believe a dead man came back to life. However, there are problems with it, and I\u2019ll point out just a few.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, what experience did the disciples supposedly have that caused them to speak of a spiritual resurrection and existential change in their own lives? You see, this theory fails on the same legs that the previous one failed on (that his disciples did not die with him and that his message was proclaimed after his death): How did the cowards who abandoned Jesus then come to preach him openly and boldly? To speak of an experience they had is great, but the theory doesn\u2019t tell us what that experience was. Until proponents of this theory can account for that, it remains a major hole in the theory. What <\/em>changed them? Also, this only speaks (though incompletely) about what happened to the disciples, not what happened to Jesus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another, perhaps bigger, problem with this theory is that Paul did not<\/em> speak of a spiritual resurrection nor of some metaphorical event. In that letter I wrote about earlier, the one to the people in Corinth, Paul speaks of our current bodies with a soul inside, and the future resurrection body as having the Spirit inside (I Cor 15:44). The point is not that the resurrection is only<\/em> spiritual, but that it\u2019s a different kind of life animating the body. But it is still a body<\/em>. Further, one scholar recently did a study of the words Paul and the other early Christians used for the resurrection (anastasis <\/em>and egeiro<\/em>) and found that in Roman, Greek, Jewish, and Christian literature alike, the words always means a dead body coming back to life.[25]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Consider also the fact that Jesus\u2019s disciples were Jewish. Why does this matter? Well, the idea of a spiritual resurrection was entirely Greek. The Greeks believed that the physical world was bad, so death was actually a release from the prison of the body where their spirit could rise and live back in a celestial non-physical place of beauty and joy and peace. (This is why Paul was laughed at in Athens.)[26]<\/a><\/sup> Jews, however, believe that all of creation, including the body, is good because it was made by a good God. Therefore, they had a hope that every saint to have ever died will someday live again in their bodies.[27]<\/a><\/sup> Therefore, to claim the disciples only meant a spiritual resurrection is to misunderstand the thought-world they came from. They were Jews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Christians, however successful, were at least attempting to write history.[28]<\/a><\/sup> One of the writers, Luke, begins his biography of Jesus\u2019s life like this: \u201cInasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses<\/em> and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed<\/em> all things closely for some time past<\/em>, to write an orderly account<\/em> for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.\u201d[29]<\/a><\/sup> Whether one believes Luke\u2019s historical account or not, you have to at least agree that Luke thought <\/em>he was writing an historical account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One Oxford scholar and literary critic even commented that these stories don\u2019t read like classic myths and legends.[30]<\/a><\/sup> On one hand, they aren\u2019t good enough <\/em>to be considered such! They are missing the essential mythical elements (fantastic creatures, characters speaking in verse, otherworldly scenes, allegory, etc.), and they include too much superfluous material (the sort of historical details that would \u201cclog up\u201d a myth).[31]<\/a><\/sup> We do<\/em> have Christian myths with all the necessary mythical elements (Gospel of Peter<\/em> for example), but the Christian texts in question just don\u2019t fit the bill. Instead these stories read like straightforward historical narrative. They are simply unadorned and plain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And if one were to argue that they wrapped their myth up in historicized prose fiction, you\u2019d be saying that they are more like the western novel than any other known genre. The problem with that is, what we know as the novel is a literary genre that wasn\u2019t invented until the eighteenth century! So unless we want to say the disciples were 1,700 years ahead of their time, we\u2019d better admit they intended<\/em> to tell of literal historical events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally\u2014and this may be the most damaging consideration for this theory\u2014this theory has no way of explaining how Jesus came to be worshiped. The Greco-Roman and Egyptian myths told of dying and rising ahistorical <\/em>gods. However this Christian story is one of a man in history <\/em>come back to life. Take the facts that Jesus and his followers were Jewish and that they came to worship Jesus together at this point. The Jews believed that creation was good, but no part of it was ever <\/em>to be worshipped. Yet, there you had a growing community of Jews worshipping the man Jesus. This was highly controversial! Had the myth developed over time, you\u2019d expect to see a lot of arguing among the Christians as to how to understand the resurrection and whether or not Jesus should be worshiped. You see, controversial ideas take time to develop and always with arguing and compromise by those involved. Not so here. The stories of Jesus\u2019s resurrection consistently reinforce one another, and the worship of Jesus was never questioned. A slow developing myth, especially one as controversial as this with a worshiped man and an unprecedented spiritual resurrection, could never result in such a homogenous community of Christians.[32]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n That leaves us with the conclusion that the disciples at least thought <\/em>they were telling the truth and speaking of a literal bodily resurrection. It makes sense of what we know about the Jewish culture at the time (the fact that Jesus and his followers were Jewish). It explains why their demeanor changed from deserters to preachers (the fact that Jesus\u2019s followers did not die and that they proclaimed his message after his death). They thought Jesus was alive. And it explains why they came to worship Jesus\u2014only God has the power over life and death. Whether it happened <\/em>or not, we are not there yet. We are only as far as affirming that Jesus\u2019s first followers thought <\/em>it happened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But what could have led these men and women to believe such an outrageous thing? Remember, the Jews believed there would be a bodily resurrection of all the saints. And they believed it would happen at the end of history to everyone. This<\/em> was a resurrection of one man in the middle of history. What made them believe this new idea? Again, let\u2019s review the possible options.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is sometimes argued that the disciples, like everyone else at that time, had an unscientific worldview, and thought resurrections (and all miracles for that matter) were not only possible but commonplace. That is to say, resurrections were happening all the time. And so what we have here is a rumor started in some corner somewhere, and everyone just believed it because they didn\u2019t really know what we now know about biology and the end of life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This one doesn\u2019t deserve much attention to be honest. Again, the Greco-Roman and Egyptian myths involved dying and rising gods<\/em>, not men. Read Homer instead, and you\u2019ll see that the Greeks knew very well that death was the end, and no one comes back from it. Plato as well. They believed in ghosts, but not resurrected bodies.[33]<\/a><\/sup> More closely to the disciples\u2019 thought-world though, read the Jewish poetry, and you\u2019ll see that the Jews knew those in their graves stay there.[34]<\/a><\/sup> Only divine intervention could ever bring the dead back, and that was only expected when God would wrap up history and bring the world to an end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But also, consider the previous facts that Christianity became popular and grew, that Christianity overtook and outlasted the Roman Empire, and that Jesus\u2019s resurrection was important to early church. Consider also the belief by some that resurrections were commonplace. If resurrections were so common, why would the disciples think this one was such a big deal? Consider also the earlier facts regarding Jesus was killed by crucifixion and yet the story became popular and the church grew. Why did anyone join the movement with a crucified leader if the resurrection was nothing special? And Christians worshipped him! Why worship this Jesus fellow?<\/p>\n\n\n\n I think we\u2019d be guilty of historical snobbery to think the ancients were so gullible and stupid to believe that death was so easily and commonly reversed.[35]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Moving on then, I mentioned earlier that there were stories of sightings. The disciples claimed to have seen<\/em> Jesus alive after his death, as did over 500 other people.[36]<\/a><\/sup> If they did see him, or at least thought they saw him, it sure would explain a lot. But what is it they claimed to have seen? It is argued that these sightings were, in reality, hallucinations. Psychologists often speak of \u201cwish-projection.\u201d When someone wants something bad enough, or lies to themselves enough, they can actually genuinely believe that what they wish for is true, or they begin to believe their own lies. This must have been the case with the disciples. They wanted Jesus to be the savior of the world so badly, that they tricked themselves into \u201cseeing\u201d Jesus after his death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem with this theory is that hallucinations are entirely private events. No two people ever have the same hallucination. Yet, the disciples claimed to have been together<\/em> when they saw him, and they all claim to have seen the same thing\u2014not to mention on multiple occasions in multiple places.[37]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Even more damaging, though, is the fact that James and Paul, two people who claimed to have seen Jesus, did not believe <\/em>he was the savior, or the messiah, or God\u2019s son, etc. James did not believe until after <\/em>he saw Jesus alive. So he wasn\u2019t projecting any wish. He had no wish. And Paul, by his own confession, hated Christians, tried to get them thrown in jail, and assisted in the execution of at least one of them![38]<\/a><\/sup> The way he tells the story, he was terrified <\/em>when he was contacted by the risen Jesus.[39]<\/a><\/sup> It was not something he expected nor wanted.[40]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n This brings us to our next theory. Maybe they did <\/em>see him, but maybe he never really died. Maybe he wasn\u2019t dead when he came down from the cross. Maybe he just swooned, and in the tomb over the next couple of days, he was revived. Then when he came out, his disciples, who thought for sure he was dead, concluded that God miraculously raised him back to life! There are, after all, accounts of people surviving crucifixion.[41]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem with this theory is that it doesn\u2019t take the fact that Christianity outlasted the Roman Empire seriously. Those who have survived crucifixion in the ancient world did so because the Roman army crucified them after a battle and moved on. Then the victim\u2019s family came and took them down. Jesus\u2019s situation was entirely <\/em>different. He was tried and crucified as an insurrectionist, and Roman guards watched over him until he died. Now the Romans were not slack at carrying out their duties in this area. They were trained and very good at killing. It\u2019s what they knew. It\u2019s what they did. And if any Roman ever let a prisoner go, his life was forfeit.[42]<\/a><\/sup> Life was cheap back then. If your crucified criminal, who you were in charge of, didn\u2019t die, then you died.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, consider again the facts that Jesus\u2019s resurrection was important to the early church, and Christians came to worship Jesus. If Jesus merely healed himself in the tomb over the weekend, I doubt he would have come out looking so good<\/em> and so alive<\/em> that anyone would have mistaken his condition as a resurrection and that now he has the power to give all his followers a similar resurrection and eternal life. Crucified victims don\u2019t look venerable. And those who barely survive are never mistaken as the triumphant prince of life. Instead, they are rushed to the emergency room, as it were.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, doesn\u2019t this theory raise more questions than it answers? Where did Jesus go after he swooned and revived? We don\u2019t read anything else about him. Did he just retire while others went around talking about him? And why didn\u2019t he tell his followers the truth: that he never really died and he can\u2019t promise anyone a resurrection of their own nor eternal life?[43]<\/a><\/sup> This theory makes Jesus look more like the TV series hero MacGyver or Jack Bauer than a first-century itinerant preacher.[44]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n We come now to our final option: Jesus was truly resurrected to life. It is the only theory that, as mentioned when I began, accounts for all the evidence, without ignoring any piece nor overemphasizing any piece. It fits with what we are told of Jesus\u2019s life as a miracle worker. It fits well into the Jewish milieu in which he and his disciples lived. It explains how a crucified man would still have followers who even worshiped him. (Did you know that Jesus is the only man in history, unaffiliated with an imperial cult, who claimed to be God and <\/em>still had a following after his death?) It accounts for the sighting stories. It accounts for why women are listed as the first to have seen him: that\u2019s just<\/em> what happened. It explains how his followers could ever spread such a story in the very city where he died. It explains the change in the disciples\u2019 behavior. It explains why so many people came to believe in him in the face of awful persecution. It is the only thing big <\/em>enough to infuse the early Christian movement with enough energy to spread its message abroad and convert and outlive the very empire that killed its leader and tried to kill them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So how can we sort through this? When historians set their hands to the task, their investigation and interpretation of the \u201cfacts\u201d is never unbiased nor neutral. Everyone lives, moves, thinks, and works within a framework for understanding the world. It\u2019s called a worldview. Everyone has one. It\u2019s a system of beliefs and commitments that greatly influence, even determine, how we look at the world, ourselves, others, God, history, ethics, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, whatever presuppositions and worldview we bring to the question of Jesus\u2019s resurrection will put all of us into one of three camps immediately from the outset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you are committed to the view that this world is all there is, and that there is no transcendent realm, and that miracles do not and cannot <\/em>happen, then you will look at the facts and say there must be another explanation<\/em>. Even if there isn\u2019t an explanation that can make sense of all the evidence, you\u2019ll still opt for a theory in which Jesus did not rise again to life. You\u2019re perfectly entitled to that presupposition and to come to that conclusion. Only know that it is a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proven. Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote that \u201cthe historians evaluation of this matter, which from a scientific perspective remains such a riddle, will be cheated by presuppositions contained in their worldview. But this robs their conclusions of any interest or import for faith, which is grounded in God\u2019s acts in history.\u201d[45]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Secondly, another option is to believe that the universe is not a closed system, but that God can, has, and still does intervene in the world for his good purposes. If you think that, believing in Jesus\u2019s resurrection is not incredible at all. The facts stack up very well, and after reading Jesus\u2019s biographies you may well think that if anyone is going to be resurrected and has the power to give others his resurrection life for all eternity, it Facts on the Ground<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A. Facts about Jesus of Nazareth and His Disciples<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
1. Jesus lived in first-century Palestine.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
2. Jesus and his followers were Jewish.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
3. Jesus was tried and killed by crucifixion.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
4. Jesus\u2019s followers did not die.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
5. Jesus\u2019s followers carried on without a replacement messiah<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
B. Facts About the Origins of the Resurrection Story<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
6. The story of Jesus\u2019s resurrection began immediately in Jerusalem by those who claimed to have seen him alive after his resurrection.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
7. The story of Jesus\u2019s resurrection is allegedly begun by women.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
8. The story was then proclaimed by those who followed him during his life.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
9. The story became popular and the church grew.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
10. Christianity overtook the Roman Empire and outlasted it<\/strong>.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
C. Facts About Early Christian Belief<\/strong>s<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
11. Jesus\u2019s resurrection was important to early church<\/strong>.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
12. Christians came to worship Jesus.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
13. The Day of Worship was Moved from Saturday to Sunday. <\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
What Did the Disciples Think They Were Proclaiming?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A. The Disciples Knew They Were Lying and Stole the Body<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
B. The Disciples Thought they Were Telling a Myth, and Jesus Rose Spiritually\/ Common Story<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
C. The Disciples Really Thought He Had Come Back to Life<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What Caused Them to Think Jesus Was Risen from the Dead?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A. They Had an Unscientific View of the World That Saw Resurrections as Common<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
B. Hallucination Theory<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
C. Swoon Theory<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
D. Physical Resurrection and Sightings<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A Priori Assumptions About God and The World Govern the Way Evidence is Read<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n