by Steve Hinrichs (Revised 2/1/98) ( or http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/)

1.. INTRODUCTION 2.. RECONSTRUCTION OF NEW TESTAMENT RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS 3.. ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS & REBUTTALS 4.. CONCLUSION 5.. REFERENCES

1. INTRODUCTION

When several different witnesses testify of what they observed at the same complex event, seldom do they all report the exact same thing; however, if they are all reliable, their accounts should be able to be pieced together to form one single consistent story. If they all reported in a court room the exact same thing and they were all friendly to one side, there would be reason to suspect they had met and decided to fabricate their accounts so they could frame the accused. On the other hand, if their accounts contradicted each other there would also be reason to consider their testimonies unreliable. Real testimonies usually fall some place in between accounts that report the exact same information and accounts which are impossible to make consistent. Since the 5 different testimonies of the New Testament report the resurrection of Jesus was a complex event, it is of interest to compare their accounts to determine their reliability.

An objective reconstruction of a historical event considers the ability of different hypotheses to explain all relevant data concerning that event (1). Thus, this article presents a full evaluation of the data concerning the resurrection of Jesus. A proposed reconstruction of the resurrection of Jesus is given in this article. The best rebuttals to this proposal, in the form of alleged contradictions, are dealt with in this article which is the critical test of the success of the proposed reconstruction.

2. RECONSTRUCTION OF NEW TESTAMENT RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS

Many historians view the historical reliability of the New Testament (NT)

documents with great skepticism; however, even critical scholars agree (2)

that embarrassing reports in the NT are most likely true. The NT reports that the leading Christian theologian, Paul, originally led the persecution of Christians. This is such an embarrassing story; therefore, most likely would not have been made up. Thus, even critical scholars agree that some sort of transformation of Paul did occur. In I Cor. 15, (critical scholars agree the Paul wrote this book around 56AD) Paul reports who Jesus appeared him. According to Acts, Jesus’s appearance to Paul was several years later after Jesus’s bodily resurrection and to Paul came in the form of a bright light and a voice.

Critics claim that when Paul wrote this passage, he was actually thinking of visions or hallucinations that all these folks had. Also, many critics claim that originally the Apostles and Paul just believed in a spiritual rather than a bodily resurrection. In the second half of I Cor. 15 where Paul is discussing the nature of the resurrection, Paul mentions that “flesh & blood” cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Ref. 13 claims that this shows that Paul did not think that there was a bodily resurrection of Jesus. In this portion of I Cor. 15 Paul is contrasting the perishable (15:42) or natural (15:44) man on earth (15:47) to the imperishable (15:42), spiritual (15:44) man in heaven (15:47).

Paul’s use of the term “flesh & blood” does not necessarily mean the physical body. For example, Paul’s uses this same term in Gal. 1:16 where he obviously did not meant it to be just the physical body. In this passage Paul is not saying he consulted with the physical body, rather with the intellect of some people on Earth. In I Cor. 2:15 Paul had just identified spiritual as physical men with a certain orientation or attitude; thus, Paul’s use of “spiritual” does not necessarily mean no physical body. Therefore, Paul’s usage of the terms “flesh & blood” and “spiritual” in I Cor. 15 do not necessarily mean physical bodies never resurrect. He could have meant by I Cor. 15:50 that the earthly or natural sinful man will not inherent the kingdom of God which makes sense and is consistent with the rest of the passage. In addition, Acts 13:47 implies that Paul believed that Jesus had bodily resurrected.

Paul reported in Galatians 1:18 that he met with Peter, so Paul would certainly have been informed of what Peter actually thought he saw. According to data about the author of the Gospel of Mark, (Mark is considered the first gospel written) Mark used information from Peter to write his Gospel (7). This Gospel reports that there was an empty tomb which implies a bodily resurrection. According to the Gospels, Peter saw the resurrected Jesus, talked and ate with him over a period of 40 days. This is difficult to explain as a hallucination. For example, the empty tomb could be and was checked at least several times by people who according to the gospels were skeptical. Thus, this hallucination would have kept repeating itself; which is not typical of visions or hallucinations. Visions or hallucinations are most always reported to supposedly occur once and vanish before they can be checked implying it was just in their head or fabricated. The empty tomb concept could have been repeatedly checked and would have been by critics such as those who crucified Jesus. Some critical scholars accept that there must have been an empty tomb because the apostles resurrection story would have been immediately dismissed if Jesus’s body was still in the tomb, so critics have concocted up a wide variety of explanations for an empty tomb. Some critic’s claim the empty tomb concept was a legend fabricated later (chapter 6, Ref. 14); however, it is included in the Gospel of Mark which is considered the earliest or most primitive of the four Gospels. In addition, in I Cor. 15 Paul mentions Jesus appeared on the 3rd day which directly relates to the empty tomb which according to the Gospel was discovered on the 3rd day.

Naturally, the critics propose that the resurrection accounts are the result of legends that developed in the early Christian church. However, as shown in Ref. 3 & Ref. 8 there are quite a few features that do not fit with the way legends typical develop. Further rebuttals to these points can be found in Ref. 10, 11, 13, & 14. These critics dismiss these points by showing examples where these features have developed in other accounts that Christian apologist agree are legendary. Chapter 6 of Ref. 14 does this by giving examples where part of an accepted legend matches with one or part of some feature in the resurrection accounts. By explaining each of these features one by one, Ref. 14 attempts to show that it is not improbable that the resurrection accounts developed as legends. One can always make an converging argument seem weaker by breaking it down into it’s individual components that are more probable then the whole argument. This approach is not necessarily successful unless it can be shown that the combination of all the low probabilities is still plausible. Ref. 14 has to bring up quite a few different examples of accepted legends to show that these feature can be developed as legends. In addition, Ref. 14 does not explain all of those features listed in Ref. 8; thus, Ref. 14 does not appear successful in dismissing these features. The critics have not yet presented accepted legends that have so many features as the resurrection that does not fit with the way legends typical develop. This makes for a converging argument for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Thus, more extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim.

One of the main complaints of the critics is that the different resurrection accounts in the NT are contradictory; thus, should be considered as unreliable. There are essentially 5 different testimonies of the resurrection recorded in the NT. In the last chapters of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) in the book of Acts (which is a second volume put together by Luke) and in I Corinthians written by Paul. In order to fairly asses if these accounts are contradictory they should be compared to determine if they make a consistent story.

In Section 2.2, the 5 different account are placed side by side each in a continuous sequence as they are recorded in the NT. Gaps are placed where an accounts does not provide any information concerning the event discussed. Thus, the reader can see for themselves how well the different accounts correlate. The data presented in such a raw and complete format provides the reader with the best opportunity to evaluate and critic the assertions made in this article. The five different columns respectively correspond to the following NT accounts; Matthew, Mark, Luke & Acts, John and I Corinthians. Luke & Acts are put together because they are written by the same author. Acts is differentiated from Luke by an “A”.

In order to help the reader understand these account, Table 1 shows a summary of the events which are the focus of the different accounts.

The two most ancient and reliable manuscripts of Mark do not contain verses 16:9-20; thus, many conservative and critical scholars consider that Mark originally ended at verse eight or perhaps the original ending was lost because v. 8 is such an abrupt ending. However, Mark 16:9-20 is included in this study even though it was most likely not part of the original Gospel.

More… http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/rssrdeb.htm