The Resurection of Jesus: Fact or Fiction?

I say fact, unapologeticly and unabashadly so.

However, not all would agree with me. A friend pointed me to this article he came across recently in which a historian, Richard Carrier, attempts to prove that the resurection of Jesus never happened. To the layman, he makes a compelling argument. He appears to have his facts and order and makes the reader think twice about these beliefs on which we hang our faith. My reason for posting this here is for the purposes of preparing Christians to defend their position on the resurection and other related issues. He is not the only person who thinks this way. I am certainly not smart enough to go "toe to toe," so to speak, with this guy (yet). What I will do is make some observations where I think that Carrier and his arguement fall short. Let me first say that my comments will be focused on what Carrier calls his "Main Argument." I would suggest you read the main argument first before you continue onto my comments. It is rather lengthy (13 pages), but worth a skim at least.

To quickly sum up Carrier's main argument, his points are that there is very little historical data on the resurection, that the story evolved through time, and that the first generation Christians never believed in a bodily resurection, that is, the resurection of a corpse, but rather, in only a spritual resurection.



1. Carrier has an agenda

It is important to note a few things about Carrier himself that make this argument interesting. First, Carrier travels around to Universities giving talks on this topic, trying to "convert" people to this idea. As a good friend of mine said, time plus inteligence plus a devilish purpose can do a lot. I am not saying that since he has an agenda it makes his argument invalid. If that were the case, then no Christian scientist would be credible. Rather, I think we need to understand that Carrier is attempting to prove that the resurection is not true from the outset. He is not just sharing information from a non-biased viewpoint. As his bio states, he grew up a "Freethinking Methodist," whatever that means. He must have been really hurt by the church at some point in his life. This is worth noting from the outset.

2. The argument reeks of Early German Liberalism

Early German Liberalism was a movevement in the mid to late 1800's that was concerned with removing any eyewitness accounts that the Bible claimed. This movement eventually evolved into another movement you may have heard of; the Third Reich and eventually the Nazi party. The basic thought process, as I understand it, is that if eyewitness accounts are removed from the Bible, then the Bible is proven unreliable, and we no longer have a responsibility to it. This is a very dangerous endeavor.

3. Some of his assumed facts are wrong

Some of the ponts that Carrier assumes as fact are wrong. There are several examples, but I am not historically sound enough to catch them all, as some of my colleagues are. One is his idea that the books of the Bible were anonymous and that authors names were attached to them half of a century later. There is an army of scholars and hundreds of years of church history that says that is simply not true. Plus, most of the NT books are written in the first generation of Christianity, where it would have been obvious who wrote them, and if the books were being circulated under a different name, the eyewitnesses would have called them out.

4. There are many noticable differences between the New Testament story of Jesus and the mythological fables we see throughout history

Again, this is not my area of expertise, but worth mentioning briefly. The countless fables that we read about throughout history (fables, mythology, fantastic stories, heroes etc.) are night and day different from the New Testament account of Jesus. Literally books have been written on this, and I will try to find some to reference here. The primary differences are in the nature of the outpouring of God and the varification of the incidences. The outpouring of God in these other fables is hyperbolicly extreme. Miricles seem to be for show and are very gaudy in nature. I reference you to The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, an apocraphal work from the 2nd century AD (CE). Giving this work a quick scan, you will see how different the miricles are as opposed to the New Testament.

The second reason they are different is because Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts, was concerned with accuracy. We see more detailed physical discription in Luke than other writers. We also see Luke nail the historical facts time and time again. We see the resurected Jesus appearing to literally hundreds of people after his resurection. We see miricles that are verified (i.e. the formerly blind man showing himself to the priests (critics)). The New Testament is just a different animal than are these other fables.

5. Paul could not have believed in only a spiritual resurection

Lastly, and in my opinion most importantly, Paul could not have believed in a spiritual resuresction only. Paul was a Pharasee. He apparently did not stop being a Pharasee when he became a Christian, because he claims the title several times in the New Testament (Phil 3:1-5, Acts 26:1-5). One of the foundational beliefs of the Pharisees was in a bodily resuresction. In fact, Paul's message is basically that he believes in the resurection like all of the other Jews, the only difference is that he believes it has already happened. This is the primary deviding point between Pharisees and Saducees: the Saducees believed there was no resurection.

This is similar to what the Jahovah's Witnesses have done with John 1:1, which, in their version states "In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Even though the Greek would allow this liberty with the language, it is inconcievable that John, a Jew from birth and a disciple, monotheistic to the core, would have written "a god" when he could perhaps not even concieve of the idea of their being multiple gods. In a similar way, it is a must that Paul believes in a bodily resurection because of his Pharisaic background.

In conclusion, there will always be detractors and smart people who are dedicated to disprove or combat Christianity. The fact remains that the message of Christ is "foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those of us who are being saved, it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18). Our job is to stay educated and in the "current of the river" in order that we may inteligently discuss and defend our positions. I believe that Christians should be the most educated and informed people on earth. If we really love Jesus the way we say we do, we will not stop until we have turned over every stone in order to better understand him and the world in which he lived. In the end, though, no one has ever been reasoned into the Kingdom. God's Spirit must touch a life and change a human heart. Let us continue to be good witnesses to the world for the cause of Christ.