[todaysdate]
By Corbin Croy
I have heard a lot of arguments for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In order to make this series concise I will begin by looking at what I believe are the two best arguments out there. They are the Best Explanation Argument and the Minimal Facts Argument. In order to fairly deal with the material and the topic I will accept the premise that miracles are possible, that God exists, and that human salvation is an acceptable basis for God’s revelation. There will be a ton of information to review in this series, so I will do my best to avoid too much elaboration.
There is a significant reason why the topic of Jesus’ resurrection has become such a hot button issue in recent years. The Jesus Seminar is certainly a boiling point, but the JS is really just a culmination of a theological movement that for the most part organized Christianity has tried to suppress. Apologists take up arms to combat atheism and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus’ resurrection was a historical event, but in reality these apologists are just showmen who are wagging the dog. The real battle taking place is between evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity and the more liberal/progressive Christianity. So while I love to sit down with my popcorn and watch the latest debate on the resurrection I know that there is just as much ideologically at stake as there is theologically.
The truth of the matter is that before the modern era you never heard of theologians or Christian apologists making historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And it was not atheists who first asserted that the historical resurrection may not have happened as the Gospels describe it. It was Christians. Toward the last half of the 19th century a book was written called “Essays and Reviews.” It was a culmination of thought which incorporated modern philosophy, science, and culture into Christian theology. In Europe it became a cornerstone for Liberal Protestantism. It became a cornerstone for the Neibhur School and Neo-Orthodoxy. Though there were many contributors, it was Bultmann who provided the most compelling argument that Jesus’ resurrection may not be exactly what we most likely think it to be.
Around the turn of the century, Liberal Protestantism began to receive a backlash and a series of articles called, “The Fundamentals” began to be printed. Hence, Fundamentalism was born (over 1800 years after the birth of Christianity). For the most part, Fundamentalism was a minority in the Christian world at the time. In areas where poverty and poor education dominated there was, of course, a tendency for more religious extremism, and so it persisted. But Fundamentalism suffered some heavy blows in the beginning of the 20th century. The first was the Scopes Trial, when it was decided that evolution could be taught in schools, and the second was when religion was taken out of public schools. For many fervent believers these were the signs of the apocalypse, and were flagrant attacks on religious institutions.
It was not until the late seventies when Fundamentalist Christianity would gain a significant advantage over liberals, and it would come by a most ironic medium. Television. Though it be a box where demons come from, the truth of the matter is that televangelism changed the face of Christianity, and celebrity preachers were now able to have a say on what the truth of Christianity really meant. These celebrity preachers would forge a cult of personality that would be mimicked throughout the country in every parish and church that wanted a slice of the success that could come from preaching this new “opiate for the masses”.
I spend so much time on this issue, because it is important to understand what is at stake when we consider this issue. There are power structures in play on both sides who want you to believe in something for their own agenda. This should not be taken lightly. Apologists who claim that they are evangelizing the lost, and who debate atheists, may seem like well intentioned and rational people, but it should not be taken for granted that they have an ideological axe to grind as well, and that it is of no coincidence that many theologians who are getting the limelight are being bank rolled by Christian colleges who have made a lot of money from the culture war. The Jesus Seminar has been pretty profitable, too. I do not deny this, and through our exposure to media and fame we gain a greater foothold to discuss our ideas and exchange information, which is a good thing.
So I respect men who are willing to put their arguments and ideas on the line in order to let others be the judge of their conclusions. It is refreshing to see Christian apologists make arguments for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and to debate atheists, even if it is most likely the case that they are doing so to passive aggressively combat a theological system that they are uncomfortable with, because in the end they are putting their ideas out there. And these ideas are worth considering. So I would like to begin by looking at them.
The first is the Best Explanation Argument. Currently William Lane Craig is the best advocate for this argument. He has made it famous in all of his debates it is the one argument that he uses to time after time win his debates. It is a rather simple argument, which makes it most appealing, and it is, I must admit on a prima facie level, pretty convincing. Here it is:
A historical resurrection of Jesus Christ is the best explanation if these events most likely happened. 1. There were women witnesses for the Tomb. 2. There was an Empty Tomb. 3. There were post-mortem appearances of Jesus Christ. 4. There was early belief in the resurrection. All four most likely happened so the historical resurrection most likely happened.
Now to prove this argument you must define more clearly what is meant by “historical resurrection” which we will do later, and then prove the four premises. The technicalitites of those premises will be dealt with later, but the virtue of this argument needs to be addressed. The first virtue is how accessible this information is. The next virtue is on how logical it is. One would expect a normal person to conclude that a resurrection happened if there were actual witnesses for it, and if the tomb was genuinely empty, meaning that it was not robbed or mistaken, and if you saw the body walking around afterward to boot. I would have to say that if these four evidences were true then I would be compelled to accept the argument, because the logic of the argument makes really good sense. It relies on very few pieces of information and it makes a good rational case.
Now on to the next one. This argument is the Minimal Facts Argument. Michael Licona is currently the major advocate for this argument and it goes something like this…
A minimal fact is one which is assumed correct by the majority of those who oppose or support a claim in order to even discuss it. Thus, in a disputed claim it is the minimal facts which have the greatest chance of being correct. If the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ were disputed and the minimal facts could still support the claim then the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ would have the greatest chance of being correct. The minimal facts of Jesus’ historical resurrection are the early belief in the resurrection, the post-mortem appearances, and Peter/Paul/James conversions. These facts are insufficient to support the historical resurrection claim, but if we could add the Empty Tomb event then we would have enough support for the historical resurrection. The Empty Tomb has sufficient evidence for belief, thus the minimal facts plus the Empty Tomb supports the claim for the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Now this argument is interesting for a different reason. It is a bit more complex, but I find it to be a little more honest. This argument recognizes what will be the central conflicting locution between both sides. The Empty Tomb. The historical resurrection of Jesus Christ hinges on the Empty Tomb without it there is simply no historical resurrection. But it makes another interesting case and that is this idea that the resurrection can be proven simply from this idea of commonality between a majority of involved arguers. This is a tricky tactic, but it is one of great benefit. For it streamlines the whole process and enables participants to not have to worry about proving frivolous points. Most people agree that Jesus existed, and most people agree that something must have happened to get people in the first century to say that Jesus rose from the dead. Something happened. The key to this argument will be the same as the previous argument which is why I choose both, and that is what happened with the women at the Tomb.
[yop_poll id=”3″]
Check SpokaneFAVS for additional posts on this series.
