For centuries many of the world's most distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious, and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the Resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can't be discounted. Confronting the facts of the empty tomb is as convincing today as it was 2,000 years ago.

A QUESTION OF HISTORY

A student at the University of Uruguay said to me: "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"
"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history-the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause? Here are some of the facts relevant to the Resurrection:

* Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the

Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was executed by Roman crucifixion.

* Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone.

* In subsequent weeks His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them at various times before ascending into heaven.

* From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.

Did the Resurrection actually happen?

Was the tomb of Jesus really empty? Those questions raise controversy even today.

After more than 1,000 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history. The Resurrection issue takes the question "Is Christianity valid?" out of the realm of philosophy and forces it to be a question of history.

Does Christianity have a historically acceptable basis? Is sufficient evidence available to wan-ant belief in the Resurrection?

IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?

Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the Resurrection, many critics during the nineteenth century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

By the end of the nineteenth century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts; many places, events, and people referred to in the New Testament turned out to be true. Discoveries of early papyri manuscripts have also helped bridge the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD. 80--two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."'

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (More than 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today.) That fact motivated Sir Frederick Kenyon, one of the leading authorities on the reliability of ancient manuscripts, to write:

The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. 2

The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence' concerning the Resurrection. Sir William Ramsey, who attempted for fifteen years to undermine Luke's credentials as a historian and to refute the New Testament's reliability, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank.... This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."3

LIVING WITNESSES

The New Testament accounts of the Resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the event. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news,' the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the Resurrection. (See chapter 3.)

F. F. Bruce, professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: 'Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts m any material respect the possible presence of hostile witn4esses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."4

The facts and details of what Christ had said and done were presented in the very presence of antagonistic eyewitnesses of Christ who knew the events surrounding Christ's life and ministry. In that you have historically what we call today in a court of law the principle of "cross-examination" to discern truth from fabrication.

BACKGROUND

The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the Resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy or cement-like substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body to form an encasement weighing about 120 pounds.

After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, the historical account points out that an extremely large stone closed the entrance of the tomb. The large stone weighed approximately one-and-a-half to two tons and was rolled (by means of levers) against the tomb's entrance.

A Roman guard unit of sixteen strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard unit affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and incurred the wrath of Roman law.

But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of forty days, showing Himself to them by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and could confirm what Paul wrote. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just "an insignificant few."

ATTEMPTED EXPLANATIONS

Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties. Put another way, when it comes to the Resurrection, the burden of unbelief is greater than the burden of belief.

The theories advanced to explain the Resurrection by "natural causes" are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the Resurrection.

THE WRONG TOMB?

A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women's statement must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that the Jewish authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent Jesus' body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there!

If the Resurrection claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively squelching for all time any rumor of resurrection.

But what did the soldiers and the Jewish authorities do? The record states that some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. (Matthew 28:11-15, NIV)

THE BODY STOLEN?

Consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept As the Scriptures note, this is the very oldest attempted explanation.

However, the depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. 'Mey were in no mood to attempt something like that.

J. N. D. Anderson has been dean of the faculty of law at the University of London and director of its Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.

Commenting on the proposition that the disciples stole Christ's body, he says:

This would run totally contrary to all we know of them: their ethical teaching, the quality of their fives, their steadfastness in suffering and persecution. Nor would it begin to explain their dramatic transformation from dejected and dispirited escapists into witnesses whom no opposition could muzzle.5

An alternative theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ's body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why, when the disciples were preaching the Resurrection in Jerusalem, didn't they explain: "Wait! We moved the body. He didn't rise from the grave'?

And if such a rebuttal failed, why didn't they explain exactly where Jesus' body lay? If this failed, why didn't they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would have destroyed Christianity-not in the cradle but in the womb!

Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, an attorney and dean of the Simon Greenleaf School of law, further explains, "It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among those who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus. "6

A Physiologist Looks at the Crucifixion

Samuel Houghton, M.D., the great physiologist from the University of Dublin, relates his view on the physical cause of Christ's death:

'When the soldier pierced with his spear the side of Christ, He was already dead; and the flow of blood and water that followed was either a natural phenomenon explicable by natural causes or it was a miracle....

'Repeated observations and experiments made upon men and animals have led me to the following results-

'When the left side is freely pierced after death by a large knife, comparable in size with a Roman spear, three distinct cases may be noted:

'First. No flow of any kind follows the wound, except a slight trickling of blood

'Second. A copious flow of blood only follows the wound.

'Third. A flow of water only, succeeded by a few drops of blood, follows the wound.

'Of these three cases, the first is that which usually occurs; the second is found in cases of death by drowning and by strychnia, and may be demonstrated by destroying an animal with that poison, and it can be proved to be the natural case of a crucified person; and the third is found in cases of death from pleurisy, pericarditis, and rupture of the heart.

With the foregoing cases most anatomists who have devoted their attention to this subject are familiar; but the two following cases, although readily explicable on physiological principles, are not recorded in the books (except by St. John). Nor have I been fortunate enough to meet with them,

'Fourth. A copious flow of water, succeeded by a copious flow of blood, follows the wound.

'Fifth. A copious flow of blood, succeeded by a copious flow of water, follows the wound.

"... Death by crucifixion causes a condition of blood in the lungs similar to that produced by drowning and strychnia; the fourth case would occur in a crucified person who had previously to crucifixion suffered from pleuritic effusion; and the fifth case would occur in a crucified person, who had died upon the cross from rupture of the heart. The history of the days preceding our Lord's crucifixion effectually excludes the supposition of pleurisy, which is also out of the question if blood first and water afterwards followed the wound. There remains, therefore, no supposition possible to explain the recorded phenomenon except the combination of the crucifixion and the rupture of the heart.

'That ... rupture of the heart actually occurred I firmly believe .... '

From Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 198-199.

 

HALLUCINATIONS?

One of the most desperate appeals to explain away the Resurrection is the appeal to hallucinations. In no way can one say that Jesus' appearances were stereotyped or that His followers were hallucinating what happened to them according to some trumped-up formula intended to convince people of what was actually not so.

The American Psychiatric Association's official glossary defines a "hallucination as a false sensory perception in the absence of an actual external stimulus."

Hallucinations are linked to an individual's subconscious and to Es or her particular past experiences, making it very unlikely that even two people could have the same hallucination at the same time. Christ appeared to many people, and descriptions of the appearance involve great detail, like those which psychologists regard as determined by reality.

Christ also ate with those to whom He appeared. And He not only exhibited His wounds, but He also encouraged a closer inspection. An illusion does not sit down and have dinner with you, and it cannot be scrutinized by various individuals at will.

An hallucination is a very private event-a purely subjective experience void of any external reference or object.

If two people cannot initiate or sustain the same vision without any external object or reference, how could more than five hundred do so at one time? This is not only contrary to this principle of hallucinations but also strongly mitigates against it The many claimed hallucinations would be a far greater miracle than the miracle of resurrection. This is what makes the view that Christ's appearances were hallucinations so ludicrous.

DID JESUS SWOON?

Another theory was popularized by Venturini several centuries ago and is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn't die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought He was dead, but later He resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection.

Skeptic David Friedrich Strauss --- certainly no believer in the Resurrection--- gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon:

It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulcher, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in fife and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship. 7

André Kole is considered one of the world's leading illusionists, often called the magician's magician. He has never been fooled by another illusionist or magician. He has created and sold more than 1,400 illusionary and magical effects.

When André was a student, he studied psychology. He was challenged to apply his proficiency to the Resurrection, to explain it away by modem magic and illusion. He accepted the challenge-but concluded that there is no way through modem illusionary effects or magic that Jesus could have deceived His followers.

Once, when discussing this with me, he said, 'Josh, there are too many built-in safety factors." Consider the weight of the two-ton stone rolled against the tomb, the fear of death for the Roman guards if they failed in their duty, the physical state of a crucified man, to name a few.

Kole was forced to the conclusion that if the Resurrection was a lie, the disciples must have known it was a lie.

DECEIT BY THE DISCIPLES?

If the disciples lied about the Resurrection, then they died for a lie.

Good historical tradition shows us twelve Jewish men, eleven of whom died martyrs' deaths as a tribute to one thing: an empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus of Nazareth alive after His death by crucifixion.

Remember that at first the disciples didn't believe it either-not until they saw Him with their own eyes. For forty days after His resurrection, these men walked with Jesus, lived with Him, ate with Him. His resurrection was accompanied by many "convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3).

While ifs true that thousands of people throughout history have died for a lie, they did so only if they thought it to be the truth.

Tertullian said, "No man would be willing to die unless he knew he had the truth."8

What happened to these disciples of Jesus? Dr. Michael Green points out that "the Resurrection was the belief that turned brokenhearted followers of a crucified rabbi into the courageous witness and martyrs of the early church.... You could imprison them, flog them, but you could not make them deny their conviction that 'on the third day, he rose again.' "9