"...at the end of the day, all of the arguments [about Christianity] can easily be resolved by going back to the resurrection. If Christ rose, then it is true. If he didn't then bits and pieces of it may be true, but the message loses any value it had. So, skeptics, I challenge you to successfully attack the resurrection. Two thousands years of trying and the same tired and well-refuted arguments being recycled time and again would indicate that you are doomed. Put all of the long and complex arguments about semantics, the lists of contradictions, the Old Testament verses that contain numerical errors, on hold. They all count for naught if Christ rose they are all explainable, all resolvable in some form, they must be by definition. Stop attempting to use obfuscation and misdirection to launch attacks; they can be entertaining but ultimately ineffective. Go for the main prize: disprove the resurrection. I expect you will come up short." [r1]
This is quite correct... Without the Resurrection, Christianity loses it basis as a religion.
James Patrick Holding of Tektonics says this about the truth of the Resurrection:
"The evidence for God is clear, so that men are without excuse (Ps. 19, Rom. 1-2). The heavens already declare God's existence and majesty..."
"He who seeks, finds (Matt. 7:7//Luke 11:9)." [h1]
Mr Holding does not appear to have written an article discussing the evidence for the Resurrection; but he has written a defence of the "Trial of Jesus". I will use his approach there to discuss the evidence for the Resurrection account.
In Holding's The Trial on Trial: A Defense of the Authenticity of the Trial Narratives, he describes the four Gospels as follows:
"Matthew - by the Apostle and tax collector; formulated as a teaching gospel... Mark - by the secretary of Peter; based on Peter's preaching... Luke - by the companion of Paul; intended as a historical document... John - by the Apostle; a kerygmatic and missionary presentation"
"Now with these things in mind, it should be asked: Which of these accounts would be expect to be done best, according to the standards of historical reportage? Obviously, the answer is Luke: As he has been reckoned worthy as a historian, we expect the most accurate representation of chronology from him." [h2]
The only evidence Holding provides for the "primacy" of Luke's account is the internal Gospel accounts. He provides no external evidence whatsoever [h3].
Most scholars accept that the Gospel according to Luke was written about 80-85 CE [la].
However, the question of who wrote the Gospel is unclear. According to Quentin David Jones's History Of The Gospels, a gospel similar to Luke first appeared, unnamed and with no genealogy for Christ - in a work published by Marcion c.142 CE. In c.172, Tatian published a work similar to Luke, with a genealogy, but probably different from the version we have today. Irenaeus, in c 185 CE, was the first to name the four Gospels, but made it clear that the authors of Luke (and Mark) were not eye-witnesses to either Jesus or the historical events. Jones also notes that the Muratorian Canon (c. 180-217) says that Luke was not an eye-witness account (and describes forgeries in the Epistles). [q1]
The Oxford Companion to the Bible notes that Irenaeus's account is probably wrong, but notes that the actual authorship of Luke (and Acts) is uncertain. More damning, it notes that Luke's accounts are re-ordered versions of the earlier Gospel according to Mark - which itself is clearly a theological rather than historical account of events [oc].
Holding's arguments are centred on his claim that the author of Luke was a "reliable historian" [h2]. This ignores its account of the "Census of Quirinius" in Luke 2:1-4. Josephus dates this census to 6 CE (after Herod's death) and there is no record of either Quirinius being governor before that time, or an earlier Roman census. (Further, some authorities argue that Josephus dates the death of John the Baptist to 36 CE: after the generally accepted date of Christ's crucifixion and in the last year of Pilate's governership of Judaea [p1]).
In short, the Gospel accounts were not completed until at least forty years after the time they supposedly relate; are re-tellings of the same events; and cannot be trusted as accurate histories. Holding's arguments are therefore based on uncertain foundations to say the least.
However, neither he nor anyone else can provide any evidence outside of the New Testament or apocryphal writings for the Resurrection of Christ. (There is one passage attributed to Josephus which does appear to refer to the Resurrection. However even Tektonics seem to accept that this was a fourth century forgery [jo] [h2]).
The New Testament accounts of the Resurrection of Christ themselves cause difficulty. The earliest accounts given in the letters of Paul refer only to Christ appearing in the form of visions. The earliest Gospel Mark ends abruptly at verse 16:8 at the empty tomb - and the other Gospel accounts, all clearly related - were not written until a generation (at least) after the events they describe [oc]. (Further difficulties are discussed in my page Testing the reliability of the New Testament - including Paul's "500 witnesses" and Matthew's saints rising from the graves).
Holding's article on the Trial of Jesus concludes:
"The trial accounts of Jesus present us with many difficulties - but they disappear upon further research and reflection and examination of the historical record. There is simply no reason to doubt that the Gospel accounts provide us with an accurate representation of what happened on that Passover night and day..." [h2]
This conclusion is certainly not supported by mainstream Christian and other academic scholarship on the Gospels [oc]. Moreover, even if it were true with respect to the trial of Jesus, it would not be for the Resurrection accounts - which have no external support whatsoever [rt].
Further, even accepting the possibility of the supernatural, there are any number of other more probable explanations for the accounts of the Resurrection than those given in the New Testament. Even if Jesus existed as it describes, it would be more likely that he either did not die on the cross, or that he did die and was not physically resurrected. (Josephus reports that one of three acquaintances he saw crucified survived [jl]).
Without clear evidence in support of the Biblical accounts, they simply cannot be believed without a priori faith in their "truth".
The Resurrection account fails the tests set by Holding for both his analysis of The Trial of Jesus [h1] and Reasons for Disbelief [h3]. The evidence is not so clear that we are without excuse to doubt that Jesus rose from the dead - and he who seeks finds no reason to believe that this occurred. (Unless, of course, one is prepared to believe in spite of the evidence.)
To treat the Bible as we would any other historical work, one must accept that it may be wrong in whole or in part. Holding, Rennie and Tektonics fail to do this and the simple conclusion is that the Resurrection account just does not stand up to historical scrutiny.
states that the Gospel according to Luke was written between 50-90 CE (with a later date being more likely). The Oxford companion to the Bible suggests 80-85 CD as likely dates. [la]
