Voices

Views from elsewhere

Was Jesus raised from the dead?

Barrister Andrew Zak Williams puts the Resurrection on trial.

By Andrew Zak Williams Published 07 April 2012 14:15

A worker lights the cross by the Colosseum in Rome. Photograph: Getty Images.

This Easter will see lots of Christians reminding us that the true meaning of the time of year doesn’t lie in chocolate eggs or in oversized bunnies. Rather, Easter is a time to remember the most fundamental event in Christian history: the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What is more, many believers are convinced that they have three arguments with which they can prove that the resurrection really occurred.

But what would happen if we put the case for the resurrection on trial and let the readers of the New Statesman sit in judgement?

The martyrs

The most commonly heard argument in favour of the resurrection is probably the most straightforward. Virtually all the apostles and early Christian leaders died for their faith. Why would they have done this if they knew that the resurrection story was a hoax?

According to sceptics, though, what this argument gains in simplicity it lacks in evidence. Apart from the apostle James, whose death is referred to in the New Testament, there is no evidence that any of the apostles were killed. Admittedly, a gnostic epistle mentions Peter and Paul as having “borne testimony” in a sense that probably means “been martyred”, but it gives no details. Apart from these, the only references to martyrdom are in late hagiographic legends.

Besides, even if the apostles had been martyred, this alone would not provide convincing evidence for the resurrection. Rather, the apologist must surely establish that any apostle who was killed was given the chance to recant his claims about the resurrection to avoid death and that he refused. Not only is this not proven, it is not even alleged.

The near-contemporaneous evidence

The next argument involves looking at what Paul wrote in one of his letters to the Corinthians, perhaps twenty years after the crucifixion:

“… Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have died.”

This is dynamite for the Christian apologist. After all, surely Paul wouldn’t have written it if those who read the letter knew perfectly well that there were not more than five hundred believers who claimed to have seen a risen Jesus. What is more, Paul introduces these comments by saying that he is merely reminding the Corinthians of the gospel that he has “received”. Aha! cry the believers, he must have received this information from the leaders of the church when he visited them in Jerusalem a few years after the crucifixion. In that case, the resurrection account must have circulated shortly after the crucifixion: an indication of its likely truth.

The sceptical response is that this passage is a reference, not to a physical reappearance by Jesus, but rather to a spiritual one. At first, this may sound unlikely. But look at the Greek word that Paul uses for “appeared”: ophthe. It is the same one he uses in his other letters when referring to a spiritual appearance such as the one he claimed to have experienced on the road to Damascus.

Besides, a physical appearance by Jesus to over five hundred people is not mentioned anywhere in the gospels even though, in comparison, the post-resurrection appearances that are recorded in those texts pale into insignificance. And is it really likely that so many of Jesus’ followers would have been gathered together in the days following the crucifixion?

American historian Richard Carrier concludes that “five hundred” may be a textual corruption from the almost identical word meaning “Pentecost”. If he is right, the passage would appear to be referring to an event during which, according to Acts, over a hundred members of the early church believed that they saw fire from heaven descend upon them, filling them with the Holy Spirit. It would not have taken much for their leader to persuade them that they had just seen the risen Jesus.

And look how the Corinthians passage continues:

“… Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

Could it be any clearer? Paul thought of Jesus’ appearance to the five hundred as on a par with the vision he had received on the road to Damascus: purely spiritual.

What is more, Paul couldn’t have “received” this information from the leaders of the church, whether in Jerusalem or anywhere else: Paul himself says elsewhere that he had not received the gospel from any man but rather from a revelation.

Quite frankly, it is difficult to know what to make of Paul’s letter. Perhaps both sides have scored a couple of hits so far. So let us move onto the third reason that is often given to support the resurrection account.

The role of women

In all four gospels, it is women who arrived at the tomb and discovered that Jesus’ body was missing. Believers point out that in Jewish society at the time, a woman’s word carried less weight than that of a man. Readers would have assumed that the women at the tomb were uneducated and terrified. If the story of the empty tomb had been invented, surely it would have made sense for the gospel writers to pretend that male pillars of the community were present when the tomb was found to be empty.

But it must be remembered that the gospels were written more than thirty-five years after the crucifixion. By then the Christian church was growing phenomenally. Perhaps there was no longer the need to ensure that the empty tomb story was supported by reliable male witnesses. Besides, it was especially among women that the church originally grew. Perhaps it was in the church’s interests to give such a crucial role in the resurrection narrative to women.

Nevertheless it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that if the gospel writers had a free hand in concocting the resurrection tale, they missed an open goal when they decided to keep men away from the empty tomb.

Unreliable sources

Since we are considering the claim that a miracle occurred, we should expect evidence of a high standard: so much so that we surely have the right to expect, at a minimum, the biblical accounts to be internally consistent. Non-believers, though, argue that this is where the resurrection account runs into major difficulties.

If the resurrection were put on trial in a hypothetical courtroom, the gospels would almost certainly be ruled inadmissible. After all, they’re the equivalent of witness statements summarising the evidence a witness intends to give in court. Where a witness is unwilling or unable to attend court and so cannot be cross-examined, the chances of her statement being admitted in evidence fall drastically. And that is so even when the judge knows her identity and has an uncorrupted, signed copy of her statement. In the case of the gospels, we know virtually nothing about the writers – not even their true names – and can only guess at their sources. Because we do not have the original manuscripts, for all we know, any part of any gospel could have been added up to a couple of centuries later.

Even so, let us assume that the gospels can be admitted in evidence. Sceptics claim that we can place virtually no weight on anything they say about the resurrection. This is for the simple reason that they are littered with major contradictions.

For instance, Luke and Acts make it clear that all of Jesus’ appearances to the disciples after the resurrection were in and around Jerusalem. But in Matthew and Mark the figure in the tomb who appeared to the women said that Jesus would go before the disciples into Galilee – a journey of several days from Jerusalem. Matthew goes on to record that the disciples then made their way to Galilee where Jesus appeared to them. Both accounts cannot be true.

And was it one woman, Mary Magdelene, two women or three women who found the tomb empty? All these answers appear in the gospels. Similarly, the gospel writers cannot agree on whether the woman or women were greeted by a man, an angel or two “figures” at the tomb.

More importantly, what was Jesus like at this time? Luke’s Jesus states, “Look at my hands and my feet. … Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” Yet John’s Jesus is able to walk through doors.

And scholars cannot agree whether the original manuscript of the earliest gospel, Mark, even mentioned the resurrection.

No wonder historian Charles Freeman concludes, “It is impossible to provide a coherent narrative account of what was seen.”

The best that believers can do is to try their utmost to reconcile the apparent contradictions. For instance, although Luke writes that it was Mary Magdelene who attended the tomb, he does not specifically say that she was alone. And although Luke and Acts indicate that Jesus stayed around Jerusalem after the resurrection, those texts do not specifically say so.

Yet, if you approach the resurrection accounts from an objective viewpoint, it is virtually impossible to avoid the conclusion that they are at odds with each other in important respects: so much so that many Christians recognise this.

As we are about to see, this has grave consequences for the historical case for the resurrection.

So what happened?

You can possibly see why some Christians feel confident when they argue about the resurrection. It hardly involves grappling with difficult science. What is more, the role of women at the tomb and the fact that the resurrection story took hold relatively quickly give the account an air of authenticity lacking in many legends.

However, when a court investigates whether an event has occurred, the judge will want to know who the eyewitnesses are and what they saw. This is where the case for the resurrection falls down. The courts are used to eyewitnesses disagreeing over the details of a story. But allow as much latitude as you like for the faltering memories and differing perspectives of eyewitnesses, and you still can’t explain the contradictions in the gospels surrounding what happened after the crucifixion. In short, the testimony of the gospel writers is utterly unreliable.

And so the resurrection must be filed away along with hundreds of other unproven miracles proclaimed by the followers of the world’s many religions.

If Jesus was not resurrected, though, what really happened? The burden of proving an alternative hypothesis can hardly fall on sceptics especially when the source materials are so problematic. Even so, Charles Freeman has outlined a convincing theory that involves Caiaphas, Pilate’s high priest, disposing of Jesus’ body. Desperate to send the Jesus movement back home, Caiaphas then left a message with the guards at the empty tomb, saying that Jesus had set off to Galilee.

And theologian John Shook suggests that Peter and James invented the resurrection account to shore up their own authority against Paul who arrived in Jerusalem boasting that Jesus had appeared to him in a vision on the way to Damascus.

The truth is that we will never know. This is a debate that will not die ... and if it does, it will probably come back to life.

Tags: Religion Christianity

More from Andrew Zak Williams

View the discussion thread.

88 comments

Wed, 2012-04-11 12:15 — Steff (not verified)

The resurrection 'story' actually relates to he fact that the sun was at its lowest point during the winter, stayed there for 3 days and then started to rise again. The rise leads to longer nights, hotter days and the rebirth of the crops and is the 'sun god' giving life to the earth.

Thu, 2012-04-12 17:15 — Keir

The sun does not 'stay' for three days; and the ancients knew very well that it never stopped in the same place twice in succession.

Have another try. :)

Wed, 2012-04-11 12:15 — Steff (not verified)

Tue, 2012-04-10 21:25 — gmac (not verified)

"We will never know" unbelievable from the NS.

You are utter fucking morons if you believe in the resurrection.

This topic doesn't require any intellectual discussion; any rational human being would know that such a thing did not and could not ever take place.

Tue, 2012-04-10 23:21 — Ahmed K (not verified)

You misread the article.
Williams doesn't say that we'll never know whether the resurrection happened. On the contrary, after saying that the evidence does NOT support the historicity of the resurrection, he says that we'll never know whether any of the alternative explanations is true.

Tue, 2012-04-10 20:38 — mcmac (not verified)

Probably not. There certainly isn't any evidence beyond the worst sort of 5th hand hearsay.

Tue, 2012-04-10 16:28 — Michael Lawrence (not verified)

It is most satisfying to see such topics dealt with in such depth.

I'm unable to understand the commenter who describes it as superstitious. It is, in fact, the total opposite.

Some of my religious friends tell me that the resurrection can be proven evidentially.
This piece gives the lie to that and so Christians surely have to run for cover under a blanket of faith. That doesn't mean that the resurrection accounts are false but merely that they cannot be proven evidentially.

More like this please, NS.

Michael B. H. Lawrence BA

Tue, 2012-04-10 12:50 — TomS (not verified)

One does not expect superstitious tosh in the rational world of the NS !!!!

Tue, 2012-04-10 12:49 — TomS (not verified)

One does not expect superstitious tosh in the rational world of the NS !!!!

Tue, 2012-04-10 11:14 — paulbickley (not verified)

Challenging and interesting.

But this article's main problem is its many category errors, the most obvious that the Gospels are not witness statements in a court of law, or like that at all. They are not intended to be precise historical accounts - differences (known in this article as 'contradictions') can be explained by the different theological agendas of the Gospel writers - e.g., in John, Jesus' appearance at the Temple occurs at the beginning of his ministry but in the Synoptics at the end. Should I infer from that fact that there was no Temple event? No, I should consider that John arranged his account in a particular way in order to emphasise particular theological themes which he considered important.

I do think the author rather ducks a challenge, by suggesting the onus should not be on the sceptic to explain what happened. If we drop the sceptic/apologist category for a moment, and think of ourselves as people who are interested in truth and encountering the world as it is, then anybody interested in why Christianity has evolved would be interested in understanding why and how its early believers would have felt they had any kind of stake in making the extraordinary claims that they did make about Jesus ressurection, and then why they loaded that claim with further claims that this somehow implied that Jesus could be closely identified with Yahweh, the God of the Jews.

I don't think the claim of the ressurection is intended to be plausible, believable, likely, probably. I can defend it rationally, by appeal to historical argument, but I don't assume I can be proven by those means.

Tue, 2012-04-10 09:54 — Ahmed K (not verified)

@spiritfromthedeep
You are being deliberately misleading.
You criticise the article but then you are wholly incapable of saying a single thing it gets wrong. What you really mean is you disagree with its conclusions - because you are religious.

Tue, 2012-04-10 07:42 — Spiritfromthedeep (not verified)

Aah, thankyou NewStatesman for yet another GCSE style article regarding religion. The execution of this is about as robust as Gove's recent approches at education reform, but even his reforms might help your 'journalists' prepare their articles on such topics.
Why on earth would someone whose so obviously anti-religion (Christianity) write an article which treats the Bible as such a simplistic document.
This is yet another example of some pithy approach to religious coverage which fits in with some kind of weak New Atheism. You're going to have to do much better to actually be relevant in your coverage of where the locus of conversation is within Christianity itself, and for that matter atheism. Sooo, here's a tip (stopping patronising tone).
The following questions are no longer being asked (apart from those who are so far behind that its ridiculous...you)
1) What do I believe? (What does my church say I should think about God?)
2) How should I behave? (What are the rules my church asks me to follow?)
3) Who am I? (What does it mean to be a faithful church member?)

The relevant questions are asked by those who care less about what to believe than how they might believe; less about rules for behavior than in what they should do with their lives; and less about church membership than in whose company they find themselves. The questions have become:

1) How do I believe? (How do I understand faith that seems to conflict with science and pluralism?)
2) What should I do? (How do my actions make a difference in the world?)
3) Whose am I? (How do my relationships shape my self-understanding?)

The foci of religion have not changed--believing, behaving, and belonging still matter. But the ways in which people engage each area have undergone a revolution...get with it.

Tue, 2012-04-10 12:27 — jankaas (not verified)

"The foci of religion have not changed--believing, behaving, and belonging still matter. But the ways in which people engage each area have undergone a revolution...get with it."

indeed this may hold true for your own version of theism, but such subtleties are not found universally. people do still cite the words in the Bible as being the words of the Christian God. but you don't? people still point to the miracles described in the Bible as evidence they really did occur in real time, witnessed by real humans. but you don't?

in answer to your 3 current questions, here's my non-theist response;
1) it's a human trait to believe, as we are just an(other) irrational animal. it's perfectly normal.
2) do the right thing, starting with the Golden Rule.
3) you 'belong' to your family, friends, society, rest of the world. in that order.

how do those compare with your answers?

Tue, 2012-04-10 03:03 — Gideon Polya

Slight correction to my post: "We will never know"? - of course we know that Jesus did NOT overcome chemistry, physics, biology and the Second Law of Thermodynamics and rise again to the same certainty that we all know that we are not aliens transubstantiated down to earth from an intergalactic mother ship."

Tue, 2012-04-10 22:57 — Keir

What we do know is that our species wiped out over one hundred million of its own through warfare in the last century. And if that means that we do not need motivation to live less destructive lives, such as that provided by the forgiveness and 'fresh start' of Jesus' crucifixion, one wonders how many more have to die.

Wed, 2012-04-25 00:06 — John Cheese (not verified)

Keir: Amen. Our innate bad nature shouts the need for something grand...No one can prove or disprove- but many whine about the believers. Many never realize their own nature.

Tue, 2012-04-10 11:15 — Gareth (not verified)

@Gideon Polya
"…of course we know that Jesus did NOT overcome chemistry, physics, biology and the Second Law of Thermodynamics..."

You have made an error of logic: you cannot KNOW that he didn’t. The 'laws' of the sciences are derived from experiments which show that outcomes which consistently accord to these principles. But this gives no reason to assert that if this universe and its fundamental laws was created by God, that he could not act outside of them. God, who is separate from the universe, would not be bound by any of its/his chemical, physical, biological or thermodynamic laws, and so raising Jesus from the dead cannot be precluded as a legitimate possibility. (This is not the same as proving that it did happen, but it leaves open both possibilities: that the resurrection did or it didn’t occur. Logic of the form you’re using can’t really take you any further than this.)

It seems a weak approach of some “assertive atheists” (if I can use this phrase) to suggest that the claims of Christianity require a “high standard of evidence”, but to immediately refute the possibility of such extraordinary evidence existing. To deny at least the possibility of the resurrection would appear to me to be quite the opposite of willing to be guided by the evidence.

Tue, 2012-04-10 02:59 — Gideon Polya

How absurd - what is the New Statesman coming to? What's next "Did Jesus walk on water?", "Did Jesus have a virgin birth?" After wading through this learned opinion one finally arrives: "The truth is that we will never know. This is a debate that will not die ... and if it does, it will probably come back to life." "We will never know"? - of course we know that Jesus did overcome chemistry, physics, biology and the Second Law of Thermodynamics and rise again to the same certainty that we all know that we are not aliens transubstantiated down to earth from an intergalactic mother ship.

What we do know is that the biological world changes with the seasons and that spring time is associated with rebirth as recounted in the Greek/Phoenician story of Adonis (the Lord) who is permitted to come back to life each year for a short time to live with the goddess of love Aphrodite. One notes the confluence of the Resurrection stories of Adonis (killed by a boar on Mount Lebanon in Spring when the Nahr Ibrahim runs red with iron oxide but re-born each year to re-join Aphrodite) and Jesus Christ (the Crucifixion and Resurrection).

A further Resurrection in Palestine/Lebanon has been that of the Southern Lebanese town of Qana (destroyed twice by Apartheid Israeli bombing).

I have painted a huge painting entitled "Qana" (1.3 metres x 2.9 metres) (see "Qana" on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpolya/4293063550/ ) which is painted in acrylic on double primed canvas. It is geometrically and conceptually based on Pablo Picasso's huge anti-war painting "Guernica" about the Nazi and fascist destruction of the Basque town of Guernica in Spain in 1937.

"Qana" is based on the 2006 destruction by the racist, genocidal, war criminal Israelis (for the second time) of the Southern Lebanese town of Qana (assertedly where Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding feast). Some elements (the screaming woman, the bull, the screaming horse are common) as is the geometrical scaffolding (a double Golden Rectangle between upper and lower strips) . Of course "Qana" also includes elements of the Adomis and Jesus Resurrection stories. My "Qana", unlike the terrifying and horrifying antiwar icon "Guernica", was deliberately softened to be child-compatible - thus the little girl with a teddy bear in my painting could be saying "Mummy , look at the explosions in South Beirut!"

Tue, 2012-04-10 09:48 — Ahmed K (not verified)

Mon, 2012-04-09 20:56 — Keir

'This Easter will see lots of Christians'

Christians ignore 'Easter'. It's a pagan word, for a very pagan, 'weak and miserable' habit. But right wing publications will promote weakness and misery, won't they.

'Virtually all the apostles and early Christian leaders died for their faith.'

That's not a Christian 'argument', it's a Catholic one. You know, Catholics, those friends of Franco and Salazar, of Petain, Mussolini and Adolf, and many more truly loving people. No, Catholics have two good reasons for saying that the apostles all got murdered. It's a veiled threat to Christians, for one thing. For another, it discounts the possibility that any of the apostles apostatised. That's a thought that truly screws up their apostolic succession fantasy, I'm sure you'll agree.

No, Christians are content just to say that it was a brave thing to say that Jesus rose from the dead. And in view of the history of those chums of Franco and Salazar, of Petain, Mussolini and Adolf, you can see they have a point.

Mon, 2012-04-09 17:37 — Ahmed K (not verified)

Really good essay. I'm amazed that despite all the abuse it has received from slighted Christians, no-one has so far been able to make a single argument against the author's substantive arguments. I'm particularly frustrated by the commenter who keeps saying that a particular book contains arguments but who fails to say what even one of them is.

Mon, 2012-04-09 22:10 — Missing the point again (not verified)

I replied the following paragraphs to someone else - seeing as it is relevant to you - the arguments are complexed, detailed and placing them in sound bites is pointless... The book is there if you care - or perhaps you are more interested in pop history. The book is written by a historian of the period, not a barrister quoting wacky speculative theories and mis-representing what would happen in a court. It is a book that is tested and debated at an academic level not at the level of a left wing politics magazine:

That's the point - 800 pages worth of arguments.. including discussion of inconsistencies - not sound bite forum arguments that you desire.. Why not read it? I think the answer to this question is the point. You don't want to really take on the full argument.

By asking for the arguements to be reduced to a forum you have missed my whole point.. which is that in a court the case would not be reduced to a few simplistic statements but the full details would be covered - so why not read the 800 pages of expert testimony rather than a presentation of a few points by someone who is biased against them.

Also in a court case you do not always take stand alone points and say each one is not strong enough - you might however take numerous bits of evidence and say the strength of all these together is compelling.

Mon, 2012-04-09 17:29 — sean drew (not verified)

the theists above need to watch monty python's life of brian - then look in a mirror... and then try hard not to laugh at themselves. this would be good therapy and may even lead to them rising above the superstition and mumbo jumbo that is religion.

jesus is the messiah! and i should know, i've followed a few!

Mon, 2012-04-09 14:59 — andyg (not verified)

'facts' and 'evidence'?
Usually referred to as faith! Most Christian believers and those form other theological beliefs will tell you that all is one.

Mon, 2012-04-09 13:02 — jankaas (not verified)

surely we must conclude that the Bible is probably the worst place to look for things we can safely call 'facts' and 'evidence'? i say this because of the vast number of competing sects that exist in Christianity, yet all claim to be based on the same 'facts' and 'evidence' from the same Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Mon, 2012-04-09 12:50 — Evans (not verified)

I respect your Atheist debate, the fact that requires of me to leave another comment, is that I have had a look on some recent articles the author published,
A quote,
"Nowadays, Christians may feel that they are under siege by the so-called New Atheists and are having to justify their beliefs as never before. But whether they like it or not, this is a debate that will go on and on."
Personally I would like to see you challenge the evidence and history of other religions too!
Judaism, Buddhism, Muslim, Hindu, Atheism, and the list goes on..
Christians will probably make one seventh of the population.
I fail to realise your obsession with Christianity alone, would you care to explain, why God in your articles is only referenced as the Christian version?
Therefore Zachary, I see a gap in arguments, instinct tells me that is deliberate, yet I may be wrong, If you are a man of true ideals, then your Next article should focus, examine and reference the God of the Hebrew religion!
After all it is the foundation of another two religions.
So Zachary let us see your true credentials and affiliations...
Are these in-line with atheism, or some more sinister agenda..?
Prove me wrong!

Mon, 2012-04-09 13:06 — jankaas (not verified)

sorry to interject Evans, but as it's Easter, a Christian festival, perhaps your instincts are off and this is not a sinister plot...?

Mon, 2012-04-09 10:54 — andyg (not verified)

All four Gospels state that on the evening of the crucifixion, Joseph from Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus, and after Pilate granted his request, he wrapped Jesus' body in a linen cloth and laid it in a tomb. This was in accordance with Mosaic Law, which stated that a person hanged must not be allowed to remain there at night, but should be buried before sundown.

In Matthew, Joseph was identified as "also a disciple of Jesus."
In Mark Joseph was identified as "a respected member of the council who was also looking for the Kingdom of God."
The Gospel of Mark states that when Joseph asked for Jesus' body, Pilate was shocked that Jesus was already dead, and he summoned a centurion to confirm this before dispatching the body to Joseph.
John recorded that Joseph was assisted in the burial process by Nicodemus, who brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes and included these spices in the burial cloth as per Jewish customs.
In Luke Joseph was identified as "a member of the council, good and righteous, who did not consent to their purpose or deed, and who was looking for the Kingdom of God'"
In John he was identified as "a disciple of Jesus."

Mon, 2012-04-09 10:54 — Sticktoyourownfield (not verified)

The most amusing thing about this article are the daft alternative explanations it puts forward for the resurrection. A N Wilson in his book, "Jesus" (written before he rediscovered his faith) came up with the therory that the disciples mistook James (the brother of Jesus) for Jesus. A recent theory is that the sight of the shroud of Turin became the basis of the resurrection accounts. All equally bonkers.
Ultimately it is fairly daft for a lawyer equipped with his own prejudices but without a scholar's knowledge of history, language, religious thought and society of first century Judea and Galiliee to be think he can cast any light on the subject.

Tue, 2012-04-10 01:04 — pelegrino (not verified)

Listen to Sticktoyourownfield. A wise and articulate person.

Mon, 2012-04-09 09:26 — Lucy B (not verified)

... 800 page, I meant

Mon, 2012-04-09 09:23 — Lucy B (not verified)

Great piece.
The guy who keeps saying that the Wright book contains more pro-resurrection arguments is missing the point that Williams doesn't really diss the key arguments -
he simply says that they're not strong enough to make up for the inconsistencies in the bible surrounding what happened after the crucifixion. And he only mentions alternative theories after he has reached his conclusion.
The guy who is convinced that there are other great arguments out there should tell us what some of them are rather than just saying we should go and read an 800 word book.

Mon, 2012-04-09 12:26 — Sigh - missed the point (not verified)

Mon, 2012-04-09 08:31 — Michael Petek (not verified)

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius would have left records stating: "The chief priests of the Jews and Pontius Pilate had the body of Jesus brought from the tomb. They ordered it to be nailed back onto the cross for all to see. And the disciples of Jesus were brought hither and admonished "This is what will happen to you if you continue to worship that dead fool." And the Nazarene movement disappeared from history and was never heard of again.

There's an empty tomb, in which lay some empty grave garments. There's a two-ton stone moved up and away from the entrance, and the seal broken. There are sixteen of the best soldiers in the world befuddled as to how the stone, the seal, and the body could have been moved while they were standing on guard just a few feet away.

Mon, 2012-04-09 08:31 — Michael Petek (not verified)

Sun, 2012-04-08 22:35 — Teddy B (not verified)

Why on earth does the New Statesman have an article about this. I used to subscribe because my politics are slightly left of centre.. but now there are so many articles like this which are more to do with the editors desire to seemingly discredit Christianity, by having people who are not experts in the topics writing about it.

I will be subscribing to the Economist instead.,, it might be a little to the right but at least there are none of these amateurish articles, with a massive bias week in week out. Could you ever imagine the Economist publishing an article like this?

Sun, 2012-04-08 19:38 — MichaelPM (not verified)

Nice article. Some earlier commentators have criticised it for the courtroom analogy, but this was an analogy first used by Christian apologists themselves. All that Mr Williams is doing is taking the same analogy to show that the evidence such as it is, is not sufficient to warrant belief in a resurrection. His defeaters of the arguments for the resurrection are defetaters that have been made elsewhere at much greater length against arguments that have been used time and again by Christian apologists. There is little here that is new, and I am surprised at the commentators who were expecting more.

The author of the letter to the Corinthians says "if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is in vain".

As a Christian I accepted these arguments at face value but the more I studied round this subject, the clearer it became that they were convincing only to people who already believed in the resurrection on other non historical grounds. Once one starts applying historical analytical methods to the question of Christ's resurrection, it becomes clear that the belief rests on very shaky grounds and only faith can carry one across the "ugly ditch of history" as one theologian described it.

Prefering evidence to faith, I ceased to believe in the resurrection, but I am willing to reconsider if anyone can provide sufficient and incontrovertible evidence that is not already skewed by theological presuppositions.

Sun, 2012-04-08 22:28 — Disagree (not verified)

"some earlier commentators have criticised it for the courtroom analogy, but this was an analogy first used by Christian apologists themselves. All that Mr Williams is doing is taking the same analogy to show that the evidence such as it is, is not sufficient to warrant belief in a resurrection"

I disagree - the point is that he does not present all the evidence - he takes a magazine format bite size base level arguemnt. How about the 800 pages of evidence in 'The Resurection of the SOn of God' by N.T. Wright... a historian at St Andrews?? I am not saying it is right, but in a court more detail would be given and the prosecution would not be allowed to present the evidence for the other side. It is a distortion of a 'court' scenario and simplistic.

The point is that in court actually much more evidence would be provided.

Sun, 2012-04-08 22:27 — Disagree (not verified)

The point is that in court actually much more evidence would be provided.

Mon, 2012-04-09 16:50 — MichaelPM (not verified)

DISAGREE, I am not sure what you are disagreeing with precisely. An analogy is a correspondence in certain respects. The relevant correspondence here is that in a court of law, evidence and counter evidence is provided to establish whether something is or is not the case. The evidence needed has to establish either beyond reasonable doubt or on a balance of probabilities.

Using this analogy helps to cast light on the quality of the evidence provided. It is a heuristic device, nothing more. However, it is one that has been used ad nauseum by Christian apologists like Frank Morison for example in "Who Moved the Stone?" and many others. Having read a number of these books they all tend to focus on the same arguments - the ones that Williams takes issue with in the above article, and to be honest, these really are the main arguments, and in particular, the one based on the passage in 1 Corinthians.

As for N T Wright, he has nothing substantially new to offer (he is by the way, not a historian, but a theologian). Much of his book is taken up with background material describing Jewish beliefs about the resurrection in an attempt to show that belief in resurrection was belief in the resurrection of the body. So what? There is a world of difference between defining something and proving that it exists, and Wright certainly does not do that.

Sun, 2012-04-08 22:32 — Disagree (not verified)

Further more you would not challenge the case of the resurrection using utter speculation, such as the work of 'theologian' John Shook.

Would you challenge a murder case by speculating randomly about who else might have possibly done it according to one lone voice who has no real proof, just a out-there self-promoting theory.

Mon, 2012-04-09 10:35 — Lucy B (not verified)

That's a ridiculous thing for you to say. Williams mentions the alternative theories only after he has reached his conclusions. He specifically states that we will never know if either of them is right.

Sun, 2012-04-08 17:29 — andyg (not verified)

‘The stone was not rolled away from the tomb so Jesus could get out. He was able to walk through walls (John 20:19)’
‘When Jesus appeared to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, they didn't recognize him (Luke 24:13-33).’
Although no single Gospel gives an inclusive or definitive account of the resurrection of Jesus or his appearances, there are four points at which all four Gospels converge:
The linking of the empty tomb and the visit of the women on ‘the first day of the week.’
That the risen Jesus chose first to appear to women (or a woman) and to commission them (her) to proclaim this most important fact to the disciples, including Peter and the other apostles.
The prominence of Mary Magdalene.
Attention to the stone that had closed the tomb have to do with the precise time the women visited the tomb, the number and identity of the women; the purpose of their visit; the appearance of the messenger angelic or human; the message that was given and the response(s).
All four Gospels report that women were the ones to find the tomb of Jesus empty, although the number varies from one (Mary Magdalene) to an unspecified number. According to Mark and Luke, the announcement of Jesus' resurrection was first made to ‘women.’
According to Matthew and John, Jesus actually first appearance was to a ‘woman.’
(In Mark 16:9 and John 20:14 to Mary Magdalene alone)
The four Gospels have it that the risen Christ commissioned ‘women’ to proclaim to men, including Peter and the other apostles, the resurrection, hence, the foundation of Christianity.
In the Gospels, especially the synoptics’, women play a central role as eyewitness to the entombment, and in the discovery of the empty tomb. All three synoptics’ repeatedly make ‘women’ the subject of “seeing,” clearly presenting them as eye-witnesses.

Sun, 2012-04-08 16:23 — Calum Miller (not verified)

(Not to mention that there are plenty of sources for the disciples' martyrdoms, and that Richard Carrier is taken seriously in roughly zero history and theology faculties.)

Sun, 2012-04-08 16:14 — Calum Miller (not verified)

There is no such theologian as John Shook. There is an atheist philosopher called John Shook, and a recently deceased theologian called John Hick. Neither are taken very seriously in either philosophy or theology, however.

Sun, 2012-04-08 14:54 — Christophe (not verified)

"Charles Freeman has outlined a convincing theory that involves Caiaphas, Pilate’s high priest, disposing of Jesus’ body. Desperate to send the Jesus movement back home, Caiaphas then left a message with the guards at the empty tomb, saying that Jesus had set off to Galilee."

How can one consider this theory "convincing"?

The facts are presented inaccurately: Caiaphas was high priest of the Jews, while Pilate was the Roman governor of the province. Little affection was lost between them, and in no way could the former be considered as the second's high priest.

More to the point, the argument doesn't make much sense: Caiaphas had just had Jesus killed publicly, and his disciples were on the run. Why would he have been "desperate to send the Jesus movement back home"? It was dead with its leader, and the Temple was victorious.
The only lingering doubt concerned Jesus's prediction that he would rise from the dead. Caiaphas had the tomb guarded to make sure no one would take away the body, which could have lent credence to those predictions.
If the tomb was empty, surely the last thing he would have said was that Jesus was alive and well in Galilee?

Sun, 2012-04-08 14:52 — Christophe (not verified)

How can one consider this theory "convincing"?

Sun, 2012-04-08 14:48 — Christophe (not verified)

How can one consider this theory "convincing"?

In addition the argument doesn't make much sense: Caiaphas had just had Jesus killed publicly, and his disciples, some of whom had denied him, were on the run. Why on earth would he have been "desperate to send the Jesus movement back home"? The movement was dead with its leader, and the Temple was victorious.
The only lingering doubt concerned Jesus's prediction that he would rise from the dead. Caiaphas had the tomb guarded to make sure no one would take away the body, which could have lent credence to those predictions.
If the tomb was empty, surely he would have said anything except that Jesus was alive and well in Galilee?

Sun, 2012-04-08 14:08 — Gareth (not verified)

The writer's approach - to look at the Biblical evidence - is certainly what I advocate when people ask me why I'm a Christian. In this sense, it's less of a "straw man" than the approach used in 'The God Delusion". However, I do think there's a weakness in arguing that the Resurrection would be credible if only this or that piece of evidence existed: historical enquiry simply does not work that way because there's no opportunity at a historical distance to gather evidence beyond what has survived, been handed down or been discovered.

While I do think it's valid to expect (as Atheists are wont to say) 'extraordinary claims' to be based on 'extraordinary evidence', we should not confuse the elements that require such an abnormally high standard of proof. The 'extraordinary' claim is that Jesus Christ is God incarnate; the exceptional proof offered is (primarily) his death and resurrection. For everything else, such as whether the apostles were willing to be martyred for their claims, it’s fair to accept a 'reasonable' standard of evidence, based on what has survived.

The written accounts which were passed down and which formed the New Testament record pretty much what you'd expect to be recorded, were written pretty much when you'd expect them to be, and took pretty much in the formats you might expect: as narrative accounts and letters, they are true to life in describing an unprecedented and deeply confusing event. They were not designed for presentation in 21st century English courts, but to address 1st century objections from within Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures. The phenomenal growth of the early church suggests that for those at whom the Biblical evidence was most directly addressed, many found it profoundly convincing. As do many today, myself included.

Sun, 2012-04-08 13:13 — andyg (not verified)

Herbert: You are confusing slavery for ressurection.
Keir: Strongly agree.
MartinChoops: If there was no resurrection then why this debate? Theology speaks in cryptic terms rather than straight forward statements. For example, do you think that it's at least plausable that this man Jesus could have gone to a blind man and told him the sufferings of the Leper camps? Therefore he helped the blind man to see! And do you think that it is plausable that this man Jesus went to the Leper camp where food was given as charity and told the lepers of the blind man who had to beg on a daily basis for his food, therefore healing their wounds?