I. Introduction

 II. Assumptions and Presuppositions

 III. The Structure of the Argument for the Resurrection

 IV. Source Material for the Resurrection

  V. Evidence for the Existence of Jesus Outside of the New Testament

 VI. The Resurrection Hypothesis Defended

VII. Concluding Thoughts

End Notes

I. INTRODUCTION

Various questions about Jesus of Nazareth have often been asked by critics and sojourners of religious thought. Indeed, this is an important question for each rationally thinking person to answer if she is to conclude that Christianity is preferable over rival world views. However, in the wake of evidence for God's existence we tend to cease our pursuit of metaphysical inquiry. This seems to be the case because of our cultural contentment for believing in some sort of deity apart from any theological context. Religious belief is perceived as a "private inner belief" that is not a matter of public scrutiny. Although religious belief is certainly private this is not to say that such a belief is necessarily groundless or beyond criticism. The fact is the avoidance of a religious conclusion evinces an assumption that Christianity is not true. Is it the case that Christianity is not a matter of evidence but a "blind faith"? Is it the case that Christianity is not substantiated by any available evidence or is there independent evidence for the foundation for Christian belief? In this essay, we will survey what it means to pursue evidence for Christianity in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. The Apostle Paul once remarked, "If Christ has not been raised then your faith is futile" (1 Corinthians 15:17; NIV). This makes Resurrection studies a paramount issue, if not the ultimate radix, of substantiating Christian belief. Prefacing this discussion will be the role of history in Christian evidence and how history ought to approach religious claims. If an analysis of historical documentation does not prove that Jesus really rose from the dead in bodily form then we must concede that the Apostle Paul's condition has been met resulting in a futility of such belief.

II. ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUPPOSITIONS

No greater influence on Resurrection studies has permeated our thought processes more than our biases and presuppositions that we carry with us into the issue. Although we may dismiss such bias as only a "default" setting in our intellects, we no doubt would harm any objective studies we begin with a hopeful conclusion already in mind. Now, I do not suppose that assumptions and presuppositions can be eradicated at the outset. Instead, I wish to encourage a sort of suspension of religious claims as claims of extraordinary knowledge. In order to judge fairly the truth about the Resurrection of Jesus, we need to be prepared to deal with the historical explanation that best fits the facts. During the trial of Galileo, his opponents viewed the Copernican cosmology so outrageous that intense discipline was to be sought. To the embarrassment of shallow-minded critics, the Copernican cosmology turned out to be true. Let us view the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus from an objective standpoint and match the results with our preconceptions. If the evidence demands that a Resurrection took place, then non-Christians need to be prepared to "look through the telescope" of history and intimate this truth into their world view.

The first presupposition that needs to be jettisoned is the view of naturalism (or anti-supernaturalism). Naturalism supposes that the only events that can occur in history are purely physical, natural ones. Of course this precludes even the possibility of any supernatural events in the history of the universe. Once someone's mind is exclusive to explanations that posit natural elements then a Resurrection of any sort is barred a priori. Naturalism is a self-contained rejection of the supernatural. It makes no difference to the naturalist what evidence exists for the Resurrection. The conclusion is always the same, namely that there must be some natural explanation which prima facie carries greater probability than any well-demonstrated supernatural explanation. Now, I think the bite of naturalism can be withdrawn immediately. The issue of Jesus' Resurrection is not one that surmises a spontaneous regeneration of dead cells in the body of Jesus. Instead, the explanation that is being considered is that God raised Jesus from the dead. With a theistic backdrop to the question of Jesus' Resurrection, naturalism no longer enjoys its restricted world view. Who is to say that God raising Jesus from the dead is an overall impossible event? Although it is naturally impossible, it is not generally impossible for a resurrection to occur. This means that we must consider the evidence instead of the presupposition of naturalism in the face of the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Another presupposition that needs to be addressed is the notion that miracles contradict God's instituted natural laws. ⁽¹⁾

Miracles, as classically understood by religious thinkers, center around the concept of suspending the law(s) of nature. This is to say that when a miracle occurs, it is the direct result of God acting in the world. Often, miracles are caricatured as divine acts of naturalistic rape whereby God is perceived as some sort of violator of Mother Nature. But if miracles are really suspensions and not violations then we have some context for God's morally permissible operative network. This raises the question about the purpose of miracles. It seems that if God desired to produce a miraculous event then he would have formed the laws of physics to conform to that event happening at the designated time. God could just create a natural law that would be time-delayed as to cause a desired event to happen some time down the road. For example, erosion is a time-delayed law that requires that an erodible substance be exposed to the elements of nature for a period of time. In order for erosion to be actualized in a substance, a certain amount of time must have transpired. So substance X can be eroded at time t where t is the desired time of God's plan for X. But I think this objection misses the point of miraculous events. A miracle occurs in the context of God as an extraordinary event with the intention of vindicating the power of God. If God used natural law to accomplish miracles then such events would not be anything but scientifically expected and explained. This is the case with cosmology. Many scientists and astronomers suppose that our life-permitting universe exists as the result of a quantum singularity. This advances the flexibility for atheists to explain the universe as being without a cause. If God did use quantum mechanics to create the universe, then he has done so with only a subtle metaphysical trace. This provides no scenario to command the necessary attention to the act and is why extraordinary causation within the physical world is necessary for miraculous events. Standard, scientific events offer no higher degree of attention. If God caused ocean tides to rise by using the moon then there would be very little attention to such an event. ⁽²⁾

One final philosophical consideration needs to be considered. It may be the case that there is no possible world where a miracle occurs except through direct divine interaction. This would mean that God could not have caused Jesus to rise from the dead without directly causing it. If this is true, and we have no way of demonstrating it either way, then perhaps the only technique God could use to maximize the number of desired believers in the history of the world is to enact miraculous intervention. ⁽³⁾ It would seem that in order for one to opt for a natural law to provide the same effect, one would have to prove that the same desired effect would ensue under those conditions. That is surely an impossible feat. With this in mind, let us now take a look at why certain anti-miracle thinkers have rejected the possibility of the Resurrection of Jesus.

A. David Hume

Perhaps no bolder figure in history has been invoked more on the impossibility of miracles than the eighteenth-century skeptic David Hume. In Hume's works we are given a twofold argument against the possibility of miracles. First, Hume argues that our "firm and unalterable experience" militates against the reality of miracles. ⁽⁴⁾ Any claim of miraculous intervention, therefore, must be matched with our uniform experience and weighed appropriately. Therefore, any miracle claim will be disconfirmed by our "firm and unalterable experience" on the matter. Hume's second argument deals with the factual improbability of miracles. That even though the principle is sufficient to render miracles impossible, it is in fact true that miracles have never occurred in human history because any natural explanation outweighs a supernatural one. Thus anyone examining the historical evidence surrounding a miracle claim will conclude that something else must be the better explanation.

Hume's first argument has been recognized to be a classic case of petitio principii (begging the question) because Hume begins by assuming that our "firm and unalterable experience" already excludes a history of miracles. It is only when he assumes that our uniform experience does not involve the miraculous can he conclude that miracles never occurred. But surely this is putting the cart before the horse. Secondly, one can disavow Hume's approach even if we suppose that he means to suggest that an improbability yields a disconfirming conclusion. There are no good reasons to suppose that because an event is improbable that it is, therefore, impossible. If one were to argue for the improbability of an event then such evidence would have to include that event as the best explanation of the surrounding facts. So one must now ask, With respect to what is the notion of miracles improbable? If anyone is to confidently conclude a high improbability of a miraculous claim then the arguer owes it to the Christian to supply the backdrop of the improbability. For example,

(1) There is a high probability that the bean I select from the can will be black.

Let us think of two scenarios where the probability can be assessed:

(2) There are beans in the can such that 95% of them do not appear black.

(3) There are coffee beans in the can such that 99% of them appear black.

When we assess the probability of (1) with respect to (2) the bean selected will more than likely not be a black one. However, with respect to (3) the odds change and the probability of a black bean being selected from the can is high. So (1) is probable with respect to (3) but not so probable with respect to (2). In the case of Hume's anti-miraculous improbability calculus, we might see the probability of the miraculous in two respects:

(4) There appear to be no miracles discovered by most people throughout history.

(5) There appear to be miracles discovered by most people who were

Jewish disciples living in first century Palestine.

Hume's objection may be quite probable (that miracles are improbable with respect to the general consensus) with respect to (4) but lacks the proper background necessary to assess the miraculous claim. With respect to (5) the miracle in question becomes highly probable (if the miracle were to be, say, the Resurrection of Jesus). So if Hume argues for a probability based on all events weighed against the few miracle claims of antiquity then one should not wonder why miracles seem improbable with respect to those. But the miracle-believing theist can argue that the probability calculus needs to focus in on the specific background of the specific miraculous claim. The same would be true for a unique event as the American Civil War. If I said that the claim of an American Civil War is improbable because most events in human history do not include Civil War events then I would not be so far off. But if I stipulated that a Civil War is probable with respect to American history in the 1860's then no one should think inauspiciously of the claim.

Thus, one can see Hume's attack on miracles as a principle against the miraculous and also as a preface that no such miracle stories are in fact true. But as we saw there is no reason to opt for the principle because it begs the question and offers no reason to suppose that miracles are in fact improbable with respect to the relevant background information. If the miracle of the Resurrection did not occur on grounds of a Humean improbability, I find it incumbent upon the critic to supply the background information that suggests the improbability and to defend why it is sufficiently relevant to disavow it.

B. Antony Flew

Contemporary attackers of the claims to the miraculous suggest a new twist to the Humean problem. Instead of dealing with probabilities based on historical observation they surmise an analogy between the present state of affairs with that of history. This is to say that the regularities of today's events must be consistent with the regularities of history. For example, there are no observations of mermaids in today's world and none seem physically possible. Thus, one ought not to think that a mermaid may have been observed by a 19^th century seagoing captain simply because no confirmations of mermaids subsist. Captains probably mistook manatees for mermaids. The only difference between Antony Flew and Hume, in this respect, is that uniform experience consists of only one's current experiential data. Flew posits a similar construction that bases its assessment of miracle claims on the general experience of the modern man. Flew calls this the "critical history" approach. ⁽⁵⁾ He contends that no good historian can adequately do good history unless claims that contradict contemporary experience are disposed of. Presumably no contemporary experience involves the miraculous.

The issue that has to be dealt with is whether or not Flew's methodology is true given the historical analogy to contemporary events. By way of evaluation, I think there are several problems with Flew's defense. First, analogical arguments are probabilistic in that they do not claim identity but merely claim verisimilitude. For example, laboratory testing on mice may give analogous effects to human responses but the fact remains that mice are not human beings. Analogies, in this respect, serve to conclude the probability of a hypothesis based upon relevant similarities. So, even if we can agree with Flew that an analogy is warranted (as I believe it is) then the analogy serves to undergird the relevant factors of today with those of history. Now the question becomes, "What relevance do contemporary events have with miraculous events of history?" The Christian could appropriately deny the connection while pleading for the uniqueness of historical, miraculous events. Secondly, it appears that Flew is special pleading. Miraculous events are generally not repeated events and are very much unlike standard events as we see both in history and today. Why should non-unique events be disqualified by the analogy of today if an event, by definition, is infrequent? In this respect, Flew's argument appears to take on a Humean flavor by making a special methodology already suited for the non-believer in miracles. But this is precisely what is at issue. Thirdly, Flew believes (like Hume) that miracles are impossible events in principle. But as with Hume, this is question-begging. Fourthly, if Flew were correct then there would be no historiographical fecundity. Something is said to be fecund if it opens the doors to further investigation in additional areas. Flew's analysis certainly precludes this sort of methodology and does not open the door to any unique investigations. Finally, Flew's analysis is a resurgence of the late German theologian Ernst Troeltsch who advocated a similar "principle of analogy" which appears to badly falsify historical claims of the miraculous. The problem with a Flew/Troeltsch historiography is that it fails to affirm an analogy and, at best, can only disconfirm the non-analogous. So in order for analogy to be properly viewed with respect to history it must explain, for example, how the Resurrection appearances are analogous to, say, mass hallucinations. It does no good to suggest that a miraculous claim of history is non-analogous to a current event because it may very well be a unique and unprecedented occurrence. And if one sees the miracle claim of the Resurrection that God raised Jesus from the dead, I should hardly think ill of the probability of that.

Therefore, I think that Flew's methodology is faulty for its misplaced falsification. It makes no sense to disconfirm a miraculous event by question-begging or faulting the miraculous claim simply because it is unusual. If one maintains a principle of analogy then it ought to be one that sees analogy between the historical event in question with an event of today. Only in this fashion can the miraculous be properly analyzed.

As we venture into the argument for the Resurrection, the only palatable and proper assumptions that can be imported are not assumptions that disconfirm the possibility of miracles at the outset. That is assuming what needs to be proven. Instead, one must enter into the historical mindset from an open and proper standpoint. If explanations are ruled out of court before the jury has a chance to hear them, then how can we ever hope to comb the entire pool of options and opt for the best one? As John Lancaster Spalding once remarked, "Our prejudices are like physical infirmities - we cannot do what they prevent us from doing."

III. THE STRUCTURE OF THE ARGUMENT FOR THE RESURRECTION

In order to ascertain the desired conclusion for a particular claim, it is important for the claim to be given evidence in support of it. The presence of supporting evidence (or premises) and a conclusion is what is considered to be a structural argument. This means that in order to have a convincing argument one must have good supporting premises that point favorably toward the conclusion. There are two different relationships between an argument's premises and its conclusion. The first is called a deductive argument. In such a mode, an argument is said to have supporting premises such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. On the other hand, inductive arguments are such that if the premises are true then the conclusion only follows with some degree of probability. The following argument is an example of a deductive argument:

p1: All men are mortal.

p2: Socrates is a man.

C: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In this particular example there is no way Socrates can categorically be a man and not be mortal so long as it is true that all men are mortal. The following is an example ⁽⁶⁾ of an inductive argument:

p1: The hypothesis has a non-negligible prior probability.

p2: If the hypothesis is true, then the observational prediction is true.

p3: The observational prediction is true.

p4: No other hypothesis is strongly confirmed by the truth of this

     observational prediction; that is, other hypotheses for which

     the same observational prediction is a confirming instance

     have lower prior probabilities.

C: Therefore, the hypothesis is true.

This particular argument is called the hypothetico-decutive method ⁽⁷⁾ of supporting scientific hypotheses. Although not every scientist or philosopher consciously uses this form, it is nonetheless the basic underpinning structure of proving a scientific hypothesis. The conclusion is by no means necessarily true given that all four premises are true. It could be the case that there is another hypothesis (whether known or not) that could better account for the observational prediction.

Now that we have seen the basic difference between a deductive and an inductive argument, let us take a look at the nature of historical inquiry. The nature of proper historical inquiry, though bearing much controversy, ⁽⁸⁾ begins with a description of an event that occurred in the past. Such an event is then funneled through a pool of competing hypotheses which offer some degree of explanation for the historical event. Now there is a temptation here to analogize historical inquiries with that of scientific ones. After all, they seem to be asking the same question: What hypothesis best explains the facts in question? And in most cases they are similar. However, the distinction, though subtle, needs to be noted. In scientific inquiries, one becomes concerned with how events in question are consistent with natural laws. In historical inquiries the focus is on whether or not the events in question took place at all despite any coloring by natural or supernatural tendencies. History seeks to understand if an event ever occurred while science, already assuming such an event occurred and does occur, seeks to comprehend how such an event occurs at all. It is strictly on this feature that some scientific inquiries differ with historical ones while simultaneously seeking the same end result: the veracity of a hypothesis. In the case of our previously discussed inductive argument on the basic structure of scientific inquiry, an attempt is made to repeat the elements of the hypothesis with the anticipation that the observable prediction will indeed occur. Philosopher of science Carl Hempel encapsulates this procedure when he observes:

. . . the test is based on an argument to the effect that if the contemplated hypothesis,

say H, is true, then certain observable events . . . should occur under specified

circumstances . . . or briefly, if H is true, then so is I, where I is a statement describing

the observable occurrences to be expected. ⁽⁹⁾

So, if repeated instances of the said hypothesis successfully yield the desired outcome under controlled circumstances then the hypothesis is said to be probably true. The geological or archaeological scientist does not have this luxury. He is basically in the same camp as the historian. It is on this level that a historian and scientist operate with equal methodology. ⁽¹⁰⁾ Historical inquiries, as opposed to some science's repeatable experiments, seek a somewhat different task. Historical explanations are not employed by repeating experiments for the desired observable outcome (since in most cases the historical context is unrepeatable) ⁽¹¹⁾. Instead, historians seek to explain a historical event by the surrounding context in which it had taken place. This evinces a slightly different approach. Instead of seeking circumstances by which a historical hypothesis can be put to the test, the historian, like the geologist and archaeologist, investigates the surrounding context of the event. We may then borrow from our original inductive model of scientific inquiry to apply to our quest for the historical validation of the Resurrection of Jesus:

p1: The hypothesis has a non-negligible prior probability.

p2: If the hypothesis is true, then the historical facts are true.

p3: The historical facts are true.

p4: No other hypothesis is strongly confirmed by the truth of the

     historical facts; that is, other hypotheses for which

     the same historical facts are confirming instances

     have lower prior probabilities.

C: Therefore, the hypothesis is true.

It is on this model that we shall probe the truth value of the question of the Resurrection.

Therefore, as The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy correctly summarizes, we see that the historian is primarily concerned with two governing factors:

(1) the temporal progression of large-scale human events and actions, primarily but

not exclusively in the past; (2) the discipline or inquiry in which knowledge of the

human past is acquired or sought. ⁽¹²⁾

This is to ask how history unfolds and how historical knowledge is obtained. By way of evaluation, it is this author's endeavor to use a general model for historical inquiry based upon a modified view of scientific inquiry in order to ascertain what really occurred on the first Easter morning.

IV. SOURCE MATERIAL FOR THE RESURRECTION

When it comes to the source material for evaluating a historical hypothesis, we must examine all textual documentation available to us. A failure to do so would result in either a biased endeavor or a misplaced conclusion. Generally, skeptics have attempted to disconfirm the Resurrection account by use of the former. Such a biased viewpoint has lead many individuals hostile to Christianity to presume a lack of authenticity of the biblical record. In vindication of the Bible many have performed the exhaustive feat of defending an inerrant structure of it. This lineage of apologetics has spawned many pedagogical works dealing with maintaining biblical integrity by answering critics of biblical authenticity. ⁽¹³⁾ Others have taken a more positive approach by seeking out the true historical information contained in the Bible and sorting out the irrelevant material. This means that if a detractor of the Resurrection were to posit contradictions in the story of Judas Iscariot's suicide to the conclusion that the gospels are not trustworthy seems to be assuming that textual conflict implies the invalidation of the manuscript containing it. But I submit that this is a leap of logic and an improper view of historical inquiry. This would mean that any document of antiquity, if it contained any internal errors whatsoever, would have to be ruled out completely. I find this to be a difficult approach to maintain if we are to take historical inquiry seriously. It seems that documents may contain errors of specific instances but still can be useful in the panoply of information that is provided as well as the core information that can be properly extracted. Instead, any discrepancies present would simply be confirmation that plagiarism was not a factor.

Since authenticity is the key in proper documentation, we should briefly consider some major facts that seem to substantiate the credibility of the New Testament accounts surrounding Jesus' life, ministry, death, and the events following. Credibility should also be gauged by the extra-biblical support given to the New Testament documents. It is my contention that any serious student of biblical literature will find that such evidence underscores the authenticity of the manuscript information concerning Jesus.

(1) The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are supported by geographical and historiographical considerations. The Gospel of Matthew, dating around the 70's C.E., was written in Greek for the largely Greek-speaking Jews of the time. ⁽¹⁴⁾ Matthew draws heavily on the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. The book of Matthew is the most contested book concerning its authorship since no clear indications appear to validate Matthew as the author. But the best indication for Matthew's authorship (as well as the other Gospels' authorship) is found in Eusebius' citations of Papias which is probably reliable. ⁽¹⁵⁾ There are possibly internal indications of Matthean authorship from the Gospel of Matthew itself. ⁽¹⁶⁾ Concerning the provenance of Matthew's writing of his Gospel, there is very little to acknowledge. But perhaps it is likely that Matthew wrote somewhere in Syria, for those who think that Matthew's geography discloses any significance. New Testament scholars D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris declare that "we cannot be certain of the geographic provenance of this gospel. Syria is perhaps the most likely suggestion, but nothing of importance hangs on the decision." ⁽¹⁷⁾

The Gospel of Mark, an important work for our source material for the Resurrection, was probably written by the John Mark mentioned in the Book of Acts given John Mark's close association with Peter during his ministry. ⁽¹⁸⁾ The date of Mark's Gospel is estimated to be around the late 50's or early 60's A.D. because it precedes the usages by Luke and Matthew (granted that the "Two Source" hypothesis is true). If Luke wrote his Luke-Acts around 60-64, then in order for Mark to be a source for Luke's Gospel it must predate it. Those who seem to prefer a later date (a mid-60's date) point out statements by early Church fathers which seem to suggest a post-Peter writing of Mark's Gospel. Also, there appear to be encouragements to follow the "road to the cross" for the readers which may suggest possible hardship for the disciples experienced by Nero's persecution of Christians. In addition, scholars point out that Mark 13 mentions the situation during the Jewish revolt prior to the invasion of the Romans. This would suggest a range between 67-69. This view is widely accepted today by the broad spectrum of mainstream New Testament scholarship. Still there are others who suggest a mid-70's date, which has gained very little support today. It is usually the highly critical skeptics of the Gospel material (usually denying a majority of the Gospel account of the authentic sayings of Jesus) that suggest such a later date. This date is arrived at by a preconception that the prediction of the temple's destruction in A.D. 70 must be seen as retrospection since miraculous predictions are unlikely (this makes the 70's date based on a philosophical naturalism). But if one already believes in the possibility of supernatural prophecy for Jesus than it would be no problem affirming the prophetic statements about the temple's inevitable destruction. So the teeth of the argument for the 70's date would be removed. This makes a 50's - 60's date more tenable. ⁽¹⁹⁾

Concerning the internal material, Mark's work on the passion and Resurrection of Jesus reads more like a straightforward account in a biographical format. This differentiates from later apocryphal gospels that are embellished and theologically charged. The somewhat mysterious "Messianic secret" characterizes Mark's theological style, not by concealing the truth but by divulging Jesus' Messiahship in non-political terms, and emphasizes the political ramifications of Jesus' proclamation as Messiah. The source for Mark's Gospel is a matter of contemporary debate, but New Testament scholarship has aimed somewhat at a working theory. That Mark relies on earlier source material (including oral and maybe written) is unanimously accepted in scholarly circles today. The contention that Mark acted solely as a transcriber (or an interpreter) for the Apostle Peter has also received widespread acceptance. Some external sources from the early Church Fathers suggest this line of reasoning, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Papias, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen (the latter two are seen in the writings of Eusebius). Their writings make an association between Mark and the Apostle Peter such that their testimony ought not to be rejected unless there are some defeaters to that view. As it stands, tradition points to Markan authorship. There is also internal evidence to suggest a heavy reliance upon Peter in the fact that the author criticizes the Apostolic comrades and appears to repeat elements of Peter's preaching practically verbatim. In addition, the somewhat unartistic arrangements of Mark's Gospel characterize it as collections of sayings of Jesus. Investigations of the so-called Synoptic Problem have yielded a general consensus that the chronologically subsequent Synoptics (Matthew and Luke) relied on Mark as a source for their Gospels. Perhaps this best accounts for their similarities on certain pericopes (or groups of sayings). ⁽²⁰⁾ Investigations of the so-called Synoptic Problem have yielded a general consensus that the chronologically subsequent Synoptics, Matthew and Luke, relied on Mark as a source in their Gospels. Perhaps this best accounts for their similarities on certain narratives. According to traditional sources (though not unanimous), the provenance of Mark's Gospel is probably Rome. Mark tends to use Latinisms in his writing and he seems to explain Jewish customs in such a way as to suggest that his audience was unaware of them. What is almost certainly known is that Mark wrote in the regions of Italy. ⁽²¹⁾

Luke's Gospel is admittedly a companion volume to the Book of Acts. Luke was a noted physician (cf. Col. 4:14) whose rich scholarship made him an able historian. Evidence that Luke wrote His Gospel finds ample support. For example, the writer of Acts says "we" when recalling those occasions where the author was present. ⁽²²⁾ The fact that this author traveled closely with Paul, even to his imprisonment in Rome, suggests that Luke is the most likely candidate. Secondly, Luke imports some medical observations in his Gospel that suggests a physician's touch (cf. Luke 4:38, Matt. 8:14; Mark 1:30). But this has been criticized by some on grounds that such medical terminology is common. ⁽²³⁾ Finally, literary devices and certain phraseologies suggest that Luke was probably the author and also conscious of his literary environment. He probably authored his gospel around 59-63 A.D ⁽²⁴⁾ and probably wrote his Gospel in Greece (following the events in Rome). Luke's Gospel is directed toward a man named "Theophilus" who was probably a Roman official with great wealth and stature. If Theophilus was Luke's patron, then Luke's commitment to his Gospel would have yielded an accurate and scholarly piece of history. Furthermore, it seems that unknown people such as Matthew, Mark, and Luke are unlikely candidates to be authoring important biographical material. This counts in favor of their authorship given the principle of embarrassment. If some early Christians desired to bolster the Resurrection account they would have spruced it up with well-known authors and would have used the "bigger" names such as Peter, Thomas, Barnabas, and so forth. In fact, the first two centuries of Christianity indicate that this is precisely what occurred. The so-called Gospel of Peter, the Nag Hammadi texts, and other apocryphal gospels were produced to enhance the Christian message. This makes the unlikely names of Matthew, Mark, and Luke a credible factor in sustaining their authorship.

Approximately four main concepts of the priority of the Synoptic Gospels have been suggested in the study of their interdependence. The most popular and currently accepted theory is that Mark was the first Gospel succeeded by Matthew and Luke who borrowed from Mark and "Q" (German: quelle; a hypothetical reference to Mark's source material) in the grafting of their Gospels (This is called the "Two Source" hypothesis). Another possibility is the historical assumption of priority: that Matthew was the source for Mark, which was the source for Luke. Others reverse the order and posit Lukan priority over Mark, which serves as the source for a later source for Matthew. In these latter two, Mark is seen as the "middle term" in their interdependence. Finally, J. J. Griesbach had surmised a co-priority of both Matthew and Luke leaving Mark as a later writing which depends on them. ⁽²⁵⁾ This is called the "Two Gospel" hypothesis. 

This by no means precludes the possibility of additional source material for the composers of the Synoptics. For example, Matthew and Luke were probably in touch with additional material (perhaps oral or written, or both) that contributed to their Gospels. Mark's source material is primarily based on Peter's preaching and perhaps a "Q" source tradition. But in understanding the relationships between the three Synoptic Gospels to each other, New Testament scholars have arrived at somewhat of a widespread consensus. Contrary to historical assumptions in the past (that Matthew was in priority), there are approximately five reasons suggested by Carson, Moo, and Morris in their book An Introduction to the New Testament to prefer a Markan priority. First, the Gospel according to Mark is relatively shorter than Matthew and Luke's. Matthew contains over 97% of Mark's Gospel and Luke contains over 88%. This may suggest that Matthew and Luke (being longer) began with Mark's material (being shorter) and inserted their own material to supplement it. This is to be preferred over the idea that Mark borrowed from Matthew and condensed his material by leaving out significant events. Secondly, the verbal agreements among the Gospels portray parallelism between Mark and Luke and between Mark and Matthew; however, there are very few of these parallelisms between Matthew and Luke. The similarities and differences are best explained by not positing too many ad hoc assumptions. The position with the least amount of added assumptions is the Markan priority hypothesis. Thirdly, Matthew and Luke do not arrange their order of events contrary to Mark. But deviations between Matthew and Luke occur. This phenomenon may be best explained by Markan priority since no auxiliary assumptions need to be unnecessarily incorporated into this view. Fourthly, Mark contains awkward stylistic traits that would have been "smoothed out" if it were based on Matthew and Luke. That the natural tendency to correct such irregularities by later authors points decisively in favor of a Markan priority. Finally, Mark's theology is considered to be more primitive, that is, it contains almost inexplicable events and actions that the "later" Gospel writers (Matthew and Luke) have doctored up to be more palatable to their readers. For example, Mark notes that Jesus "could not do any miracles" while in Nazareth (6:5) while its parallel passage in Matthew says that Jesus simply "would not do any miracles there" (13:58). The idea that Jesus could not perform miracles in Nazareth might have been too troublesome for potential readers.

Therefore, it seems that although several theories to the Synoptic Problem each seem to enjoy a sense of explanation of particular facts about Synoptic agreements and disagreements, the prevalent theory today that best accounts for the evidence is Markan priority.

Now, many make the temptation of supposing that when a work has scientific consistency then such a work a priori should be deemed actual history. But it would be erroneous to base such a conclusion solely on such an isolated feature. Consider that fictitious works sometimes utilize actual historical chronologies and regions, but this prima facie does not imply a veridical document. Instead, it is the feature of the genre of literature taken in conjunction with its scientific consistency that warrants one to conclude that an actual historical document is under examination. And many features are present within the Synoptic Gospels that support their historically narrative genre. ⁽²⁶⁾ For example, the 1961 finding of an inscription of the name "Pilate" delegates specific extra-biblical confirmation for the Gospel accounts of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, who sentenced Jesus to his death. Also, the discovery of an ossuary containing the remains of a man who had been crucified with nails in his ankles seems to verify such execution techniques during Jesus' time. In addition, the 1992 discovery of the bones of Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest during the time of Jesus, silenced skeptical queries about Caiaphas' existence. The close similarities of the events depicted between biographies and historical literature and the Synoptics demonstrate that a general continuity and reliability are to be seen. Given the genre of the literature, the Synoptics ought to serve as historical sources.

(2) The Johannine Gospel, derived from an independent tradition and thought to be the most theologically rich Gospel, enjoys basic material consistency with the Synoptics and the extra-biblical writings. John's Gospel, seemingly written to theologically enhance the life of Jesus and to promote a philosophy of religion contrary to the Greeks at that time, was probably written much later than the Synoptics. John's Gospel probably dates around 85 C.E. or later. ⁽²⁷⁾ And his stylistic fervor seems to promote the most obvious references to Jesus' Messiahship and Deity in his work. As a consequence, John's Gospel is perhaps the most controversial. Many who read the Gospel of John have come to the conclusion that John was either writing to supplement the Synoptic accounts or to reflect on the events of Jesus' life from an independent perspective. In support of the former view, John makes more allusions and provides more details of the geography, topography, and chronology of the events depicted in the Synoptics. On this level, it seems that the authenticity of John's Gospel is due to the great detail placed in it. Also, one has to consider that the style and flavor of John's writing was indicative of a first-century Palestinian Jewish setting. ⁽²⁸⁾ Nonetheless, there are elements of John's Gospel that seem to grant credulity to this mysterious work. For example, John divulges the fact that Jesus' ministry occurred for about three years. John's work seems to be written for the purpose of "filling in" both historical and theological details not contained elsewhere. In fact, it seems that John is deliberately distancing the philosophy of Jesus' life from that of Hellenized Judaism and Greco-Roman paganism. For example, John emphasizes that Jesus is the incarnate Logos of God (John 1:1; 14) yet "logos" was a term used by ancient philosophers to describe their views of the manifestation of Reality that would not have taken material form. ⁽²⁹⁾ In any event, John's work accurately captures the Christianity of the First Century.

(3) The Book of Acts is practically an indisputably accurate transcription of first-century Christianity. The Book of Acts is Luke's second chapter to his companion Gospel. Acts more likely dates no later than 63 C.E. given the open-ended conclusion of the events depicted (e.g. there is no outcome to Paul's trial - a feature that would have definitely been included had it been known at the time of writing). In the end of Acts, Jesus' brother James is still alive, and Paul remains under house arrest after his voyage to Rome. Further warrant for an early 60's date stems from the noted figures Festus and Agrippa prior to Paul's house arrest and the significant silence of the burning of Rome and the persecution of Christians there which occurred in 64 C.E. Acts makes no mention of these events which most certainly would have been recorded if Acts were still being written or if Acts were being written subsequent to those events. Acts contains about 30 years of Church history from the post-mortem appearances of Jesus (in the 30's) to the house arrest of Paul in Rome (in the early 60's). From the birth of the Church to the persecution of Christians we see well-developed scenarios that characterized Christianity during this time-frame. Notable Roman Historian Colin J. Hemer chronicles 17 significant reasons to accept the traditional early-60's dating of Acts. ⁽³⁰⁾ Concerning the historical accuracy of Acts, scholars have generally engulfed themselves in the rich historical and archaeological information latent within it. Acts is perhaps the most popular book for historical studies since it contains a wealth of historically verifiable and significant elements. Dr. Normal L. Geisler of Southern Evangelical Seminary lists 43 of those verified instances of historical and archaeological accuracy. ⁽³¹⁾ Some of these include Luke's properly identification of two ports, Mount Casius (south of Seleucia) and the river port, Perga, from Cyprus (13:4-5, 13). The location of Lycaonia is properly identified (14:6). We are also told correctly that travel by sea during the summer time to Athens during easterly winds is the most efficient route (17:14). The correct designations of grammateus and anthupatoi properly reflect titles for magistrates and those holding court (19:35, 38) while Neokoros is the proper name for the goddess (19:37). For these and other reasons scholars consider Acts to be a widely acknowledged reliable source of information on first-century Christian history.

(4) The Pauline Letters contain the oldest information on the Resurrection of Jesus by an influential former enemy of Christianity. There is no doubt that Paul's written works in the New Testament offer theological significance to the Resurrection and his coming eschatological arrival. What is rather intriguing about Paul (or Saul) is that he had no sympathies for the Christian cause when the birth of the Church occurred. Paul himself was a former Jewish Pharisee and perceived the Christian myth to be a dangerous obstacle to his orthodox Jewish upbringing. This led Paul to persecute the Christians even to the point of executing them. ⁽³²⁾ When Paul finally did make his conversion to Christianity, his missionary writings contained the most theologically significant information on doctrinal matters. As such, each written work by Paul proved to be important source material for the Christian church. What is significant for our assessment of the Resurrection is the old tradition laced within 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians itself was authored circa 55 A.D. and was probably written toward the end of Paul's three-year stay in Ephesus. As such it barely predates the Book of Romans (57 A.D.). However, when Paul mentions that "What I received I passed on to you . . . " (1 Cor. 15:3; NIV) he is suggesting that his information was not derived from special revelation or personal invention. Instead, his information is taken from an old tradition circulated by other Christians. This can be seen in the technical language used by Paul to denote the transmission and reception of this tradition. ⁽³³⁾ This means that in order for Paul to have received such a tradition, he would had to have picked it up when he was in Jerusalem. Galatians 1:18 informs us that Paul indeed was in Jerusalem around 36 A.D. at the latest and stayed with James for approximately two weeks. So, the latest Paul could have received an already ongoing tradition would have been within six years of the Resurrection event itself.

It seems that based on a careful analysis of the New Testament writings, we find good reasons to adopt early ages for their authorship. Some believe that the dating of the writings is unimportant, ⁽³⁴⁾ but for those who perceive the possibility of corruption with age can find the aforementioned reasons a comfortable foundation upon which to repose confidence. At any rate, the New Testament literature serves as a proper basis for historical inquiry.

V. EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS OUTSIDE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Many critics of the Resurrection of Jesus take a somewhat jaded approach. Such critics are generally atheists who prefer to dispose of the life of Jesus altogether so that any reference to Jesus' Resurrection is just as mythological as embellished stories about Mithras, Buddha, Muhammad, Lao-Tzu, and so forth. After all, if Jesus never existed then the entire Resurrection enterprise becomes vacated. However, disputations of the existence of Jesus have generally been disregarded since the evidence for Jesus' existence is overwhelmingly present in historical, non-biblical literature. This is why theologically liberal scholars alter the gospel's portrait of Jesus. If it benefitted a theological stance to deny the Resurrection of Jesus and to posit him as a mere Mediterranean Jewish peasant, then there is no doubt that a denial of Jesus altogether would ensue if Jesus were not a historical figure. A denial of Jesus' existence would serve to defer questions about the Resurrection for interested pursuers of fiction. Historical scholarship on Jesus would be settled. But the consensus of scholarship overwhelmingly supports the existence of Jesus as a historical person. Many base their views solely on the New Testament source material. Others understand that there are several historians of antiquity that provide a substantial basis for the existence of Jesus. In this section we will look at only a few of these.

(1) Flavius Josephus.

Josephus was a first century Jewish historian who authored information about the history of the Jews beginning with Adam (The Antiquities of the Jews), a first-hand account of the revolt against Rome (The Jewish War), and an autobiographical account (Life). The importance of a Jewish historian in mentioning Jesus affords unbiased verification of the historicity of a man whose teachings were in opposition to Josephus' own beliefs about the expected Messiah. Unfortunately, the much celebrated references to Jesus by Josephus have been scrutinized by critics of the historicity of Jesus. It is their contention that Josephus did not write about Jesus at all but, rather, whose writings were contaminated by Christian copyists who sought to add extra-biblical credibility to the historicity of Jesus. Scholars on Josephus have come to a somewhat different conclusion. By their examination, the references to Jesus by Josephus seem to be appropriately attributed to Josephus' original work. ⁽³⁵⁾

There are two passages by Josephus that mention Jesus. One of them is the much-controversial Testimonium Flavianum:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a

man. For he was a doer of amazing deeds, a teacher of persons who receive truth

with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah.

And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, the leading men among us having

accused him, those who loved him from the first did not cease to do so. For he

appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these

things and a myriad of other marvels concerning him. And to the present the tribe

of Christians, named after this person, has not disappeared. ⁽³⁶⁾

There are some phrases and sentences in this passage that are peculiar statements if they were written by a non-Christian, Jewish individual. This is why many protest the passage. Some of these peculiar wordings include "if indeed one ought to call him a man" which seems to signify deification. But a Jewish historian surely would not have believed in the deity of Jesus for this would have convoluted his integrity as a religious Jew. This also seems to be in discord with the previous statement, "a wise man," which inadvertently precludes any notion of divinity. A similar concern exists for the other statements under question with "He was the Messiah" and "For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these things and a myriad of other marvels concerning him." The notion of a resurrection for a Jewish historian would have been greatly untenable, especially given Jewish conceptions of resurrection (more on this issue later).

Miami University Professor of history, Edwin M. Yamauchi, lists five main reasons why scholars on Josephus believe the Testimonium Flavianum is an authentic reference to Jesus: ⁽³⁷⁾

1. Jesus is called "a wise man." Though the phrase is complimentary, it is less

     than one would expect from Christians.

2. "For he was one who wrought surprising feats" ["For he was a doer of amazing

     deeds"]. This is not necessarily a statement that could only have come from a

     Christian.

3. "He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks" is simply an observation.

4. "Those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their

     affection for him," conforms to Josephus' characteristic style.

5. "And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not

     disappeared." Most scholars would agree that the word phylon "tribe," is

     not a typically Christian expression.

It has also been noted by Yamauchi that a tenth century Melkite bishop of Hierapolis, named Agapius, inscribed an Arabic translation of Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum that seems to possess differences with the Greek version which may divulge the original passage. ⁽³⁸⁾ The Israeli scholar, S. Pines, observes approximately four of these differences:

1. Josephus expresses the mere humanity of Jesus.

2. Josephus refers only to Jesus' good conduct and virtue.

3. Josephus refers to the appearance of Jesus after three days as merely a "report."

4. Josephus has the qualifier "perhaps" immediately preceding "he was the Messiah."

Given these tenth century differences, the existence of Jesus and the validation of his unique claims and behavior conducive to Messiahship are afforded credibility.

The second reference of Jesus by Josephus is found in Antiquities 20.9.1 S200-201 where we have a more evanescent mentioning of Jesus. In this passage we read:

He (Ananus) convened the council of judges and brought before it the brother

of Jesus-the one called "Christ"-whose name was James, and certain others.

Accusing them of transgressing the law he delivered them up for stoning. But

those of the city considered to be the most fair-minded and strict concerning the

laws were offended at this and sent to the king secretly urging him to order

Ananus to take such actions no longer.

There are four interesting features with this second passage that lend credence to the authenticity of Josephus' reference to Jesus. First, the reference to Jesus seems to be in passing and only serves to undergird the core analysis by Josephus on the subject of Ananus as the high priest. The reference to Jesus is merely to explain James' significance in the events listed. Secondly, the phrase "the one called 'Christ'" seems to imply an earlier reference - perhaps the Testimonium Flavianum. Thirdly, Josephus discusses here the stoning of James which is not an element in any of the New Testament writings. In the New Testament, James is still alive at the time Acts concludes. This would imply that Josephus was not borrowing from Christian sources but, rather, secular sources independent of the New Testament. Finally, Josephus refers to James as "the brother of Jesus" whereas Christians have generally referred to James as "the brother of the Lord." ⁽³⁹⁾

Most scholars who have reviewed the writings of Josephus generally conclude that he makes genuine references to Jesus albeit the Testimonium Flavianum contains elements of Christian embellishment. The fact that Josephus refers to Jesus at least twice in his writings adds extra-biblical and unbiased support for the authenticity of Jesus' existence.

(2) Suetonius

Roman historian Suetonius lived from approximately 70 A.D. to 160 A.D. His references to Jesus is a little more enigmatic than Josephus'. However, Suetonius is worth mentioning since his passages have been the subject of scholarly observation. The background of the passage in Vita Claudius (25.4) concerns tumult in the Jewish-Roman community. It reads:

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he

expelled them from Rome.

A number of scholars have extracted the peculiar reference to "Chrestus" and have concluded that it is a variant spelling of "Christus" (the Latin for "Christ"). Despite its seemingly reference to Chrestus being in Rome and the notion that Chrestus was possibly a reference to a generic Jewish agitator, many have concluded that this reference is to the expulsion noted in Acts 18:1-2:

Then Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he became acquainted with

a Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently arrived from Italy with

his wife, Priscilla. They had been expelled from Italy as a result of Claudius

Caesar's order to deport all Jews from Rome. Paul lived and worked with them,

for they were tentmakers just as he was (The Living Bible).

But this passage in no way presumes that Jesus is the source of the Jewish disturbances. As Yamauchi observes:

An important argument against the view that the Chrestus incident in 49 involved

Christians is the fact that about 60, when Paul was under house arrest in Rome, the

Jewish leaders who came to Paul betray no knowledge of the Christian movement

(Acts 28:21-22). ⁽⁴⁰⁾

Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and

mischievous superstition.

Whether the "mischievous superstition" is the Christian phenomenon itself or a subtle and unfriendly reference to the Resurrection of Jesus is unclear, but the fact that another Roman historian, Tacitus, also makes a reference to a "mischievous superstition" as the source of Christian belief (in his Annals 15.44) may infer Jesus and his Resurrection (more on this below). But conclusions based on Suetonius' references appear to be dubious at best notwithstanding the influence of the Christian belief in the Resurrection clearly evident in Jesus' followers.

(3) Cornelius Tacitus

Tacitus, another Roman historian born around 52 - 55 A.D., was the son-in-law of the former Governor of Britain, Julius Agricola. Having expressed sheer hatred for Christians and Jews, he makes an interesting observation about Nero's persecution of the Christians in his Annals 15.44:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of

the gods did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of

an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted

the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians

by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme

penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius

Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke

out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things

hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become

popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon

their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of

firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. ⁽⁴¹⁾

Three elements about Jesus, echoed by the Gospel accounts of the eyewitnesses of Jesus and his contemporaries, are multiply attested by this non-biblical historian who is somewhat unsympathetic to Christianity:

1. Christians were named after Christ ("Christus, from whom the name had its origin").

2. Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius ("Christus . . .

     suffered . . . during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilate").

3. Christianity spread from Judea to Rome en masse (". . . broke out not only in

     Judea . . . but even in Rome . . . an immense multitude was convicted").

Given these three observations about Tacitus' evaluation of the ravishing fire of 64 A.D. and the Christians' blame for it, it appears we have unbiased testimony to the existence of Jesus, his death, and the widespread faith of Christianity beginning from Judea and extending to Rome. Tacitus' passage adds one more reason to agree with noted author and apologist for the Resurrection, Josh McDowell, ⁽⁴²⁾ when he states, "It is certainly not the historians (maybe a few economists) who propagate a Christ-myth theory of Jesus." ⁽⁴³⁾

(4) Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger, or Plinius Secundus, was the nephew of Pliny the Elder (a known encyclopedist). As Governor of Bithynia in northwestern Turkey around 112 A.D., he writes to emperor Trajan about his advisement on the treatment of Christians in his Letters 10.96:

I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do

not know the nature of the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them,

nor the grounds for starting an investigation and how far it should be pressed . . .

I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question

a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they

persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their

admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy

ought not to go unpunished . . . They also declared that the sum total of their guilt

or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a

fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as

if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but

to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery, . . . This made me decide it was all

the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom

they call deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to

extravagant lengths. ⁽⁴⁴⁾

By observing this particular passage, we can gather three insightful elements of the historical Jesus:

1. Regular meetings occurred once a week in conjunction with worship songs in

     memory of Jesus ("they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to

     chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ").

2. Jesus was honored "as if to a god." ⁽⁴⁵⁾

3. Christians adopted the ethics employed by Jesus ("they . . . bind themselves by

     oath . . . to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery"). ⁽⁴⁶⁾

It appears that the death of Jesus (and his Resurrection?) impacted the early Christian church. If Christians assented to their Messiah "as if to a god" and honored his memorial via worship songs, then it seems that a manifested Christology about Jesus existed. But all of this assumes that Pliny was writing about a man who actually existed at one time.

By observing these Roman and Jewish sources that were inscribed outside of the New Testament canon, it seems implausible to suppose that Jesus' existence was the product of pure fiction. Instead, such criticism and anti-Christian defamation of the followers of Jesus seems to be a non-biblical corroborating source for Jesus' historicity. In any event, critics of the historicity of Jesus must wrestle with such perplexing passages written by men who were unsympathetic to the messages of Jesus and wielders of animosity toward the Christian cause.

VI. THE RESURRECTION HYPOTHESIS DEFENDED

Now that we have an awareness of Jesus outside of the New Testament and the source material from which the evidence for the Resurrection will draw its information, we can now begin to apply the core information from the New Testament writings to the inductive argument structure covered in Section III above. This is where the Resurrection hypothesis will be critically evaluated. For some, the authenticity of the Synoptics, the Pauline letters, and the Johannine writings are dead on arrival. Their quest for the "real" Jesus becomes a theological salvage operation from source material generally regarded as inaccurate with views colored by preconceived biases about what they think happened on that first Easter morning. For others, it makes no difference whether the source material for the Resurrection hypothesis is authentic or not. They would suppose that a naturalistic explanation of the facts is a better one. Whatever the controversy, critics usually fall under one of these two categories. This means that in order for a critic of the Resurrection to be receptive to the Resurrection hypothesis, there must be a good argument for the Resurrection with supporting evidences that entails that the Resurrection hypothesis far exceeds its rivals in meeting well-established historical conditions. ⁽⁴⁷⁾ In the following defense of the Resurrection hypothesis, the case for Jesus' Resurrection will be established.

Premise 1: The Resurrection hypothesis has a non-negligible prior probability.

It may surprise some harboring antipathy toward the Resurrection of Jesus that such an event was to be expected. Despite the fact that the isolated resurrection of any single individual was contrary to Jewish thought (contrary to beliefs about the General Resurrection), there are some good reasons to suppose that Jesus' Resurrection enjoyed a non-negligible prior probability. By "non-negligible prior probability" I mean to suggest that the probability of Jesus' Resurrection was an event to be initially feasible given that God directly acts in the world to establish empirical support for special revelation, even though the Resurrection in particular is not to be evinced primarily from this observation. ⁽⁴⁸⁾ Consider three examples from the Old Testament where God uses miracles to vindicate certain proclamations:

(a) God performed miracles to Pharaoh through Moses to validate the liberation

     of the Hebrew slaves (Exodus 6:29-7:3).

(b) God performed a miracle through Elijah to establish who was the true God

     (1 Kings 18:19-39).

(c) God performed a miracle to validate the revelation given to Hezekiah by Isaiah

     that his life would be extended 15 years longer (Isaiah 38:1-9; 2 Kings 20:4-11).

These should serve to promulgate God's miraculous expectancy in vindicating special matters of revelation. However, one may observe that God also uses physically normative occurrences to establish credibility. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ Fortunately, the difference between God's prompting of natural events and supernatural events for establishing credible revelation are somewhat clear. In the cases where God uses normative, natural events to underscore an event established by God, they are cases that harbor very little import. However, when God seeks to validate matters of great import he generally uses impressive, supernatural events.

In the case of Jesus' own unparalleled life and as the self-declared special revelation of God, we would expect a grand miraculous event to substantiate such radical assertions. After all, in Jewish thought there was no expectation of a Messiah who would profess to suffer and die for the propitiation of sinful people. ⁽⁵⁰⁾ As far as Jesus understood himself, he was the special revelation of God who had come on his own authority as the voice for God (a claim no Jewish Rabbi would have dared to profess). ⁽⁵¹⁾ Secondly, Jesus thought of himself as the unique Son of God categorically distinct from earlier references to Jewish holy men who were called "sons of God." ⁽⁵²⁾ Thirdly, Jesus believed he could arbitrate people's eternal destiny. ⁽⁵³⁾ Fourthly, Jesus believed that in himself the kingdom of God had arrived. ⁽⁵⁴⁾ Finally, on the basis of the previous four, Jesus thought of himself as the incarnation of God himself. ⁽⁵⁵⁾ Given these five essential established descriptions of the self-understanding of Jesus, one could confidently expect that a grand vindication of such radical claims would be nigh, especially if Jesus were to be publicly executed in confirmation of his earlier prediction of his death just prior to his Resurrection. ⁽⁵⁶⁾ Horst Georg Pöhlmann summarizes this evidence in his Abriss der Dogmatik when he states:

In summary, one could say that today there is virtually a consensus concerning

that wherein the historical in Jesus is to be seen. It consists in the fact that Jesus

came on the scene with an unheard of authority, namely with the authority of

God, with the claim of the authority to stand in God's place and speak to us and

bring us to salvation. ⁽⁵⁷⁾

Premise 2: If the Resurrection hypothesis is true, then the historical facts are true.

Premise 3: The historical facts are true.

One would initially expect that the historical facts would lead to the hypothesis rather than the hypothesis lead to the historical facts. Some critics of the Resurrection believe that the disciples derived their miracle from another source independent of (and even prior to) the historical facts (this will be dealt with in section 6.1.3). Nonetheless, this premise serves to render the Resurrection hypothesis true such that any observed facts about the events following Jesus' public execution are best explained by the Resurrection hypothesis. Even though a deductive strategy would be effective in establishing the Resurrection as a historical event, our evaluation here is to see how the Resurrection best explains the well-established facts about Jesus. This evaluation informs us that if the Resurrection hypothesis is true, then we would expect the observed facts to be confirmatory evidence of that hypothesis. However, before the evidence can be properly discussed there must first be a survey of the particular evidence generally agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars. Upon surveying such evidence, the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead shall be measured by the elements of good historical justification.

6.1 Three Well-Established Historical Facts

6.1.1 The Empty Tomb

One of the most staggering lines of evidence that needs to be considered is the fact that the body of Jesus subsequent to his public execution was no longer located in the tomb he was buried in. If Jesus was killed and his body placed in a tomb known to the general community, and if Jesus' body was no longer present in the tomb, then the empty tomb story is undeniable. Thus, it must first be true that Jesus was initially executed publicly and buried in an accessible and known location. If it can be established that Jesus' burial was essentially accurate, then the empty tomb hypothesis would enjoy considerable strength since its location would have been ascertained by interested pilgrims and discriminating skeptics. Therefore, the empty tomb evidence gains its explanatory force in the wake of Jesus' burial. After all, if a critic desired to expose the entire Christian affair (particularly since the entire Christian belief system depended on it ⁽⁵⁸⁾) one need only exhume the body of Jesus and publicize its existence. Since this does not occur, and that Jesus' burial site was known in the first century (as the following evidence suggests), then the evidence of the empty tomb avails the Christian affirmation of the Resurrection.

6.1.1.1 Jesus was tortured and then publicly executed until death.

6.1.1.1.1 Mark 15:1-47

In this account, Mark details the public outcry for justice concerning the sentencing and death of Jesus of Nazareth which ultimately prompted the release of a murderous insurrectionist. Pontius Pilate, the Italian-born procurator of Judea who was responsible to the Roman governor, ⁽⁵⁹⁾ took the democratic approach. He paraded the murderer, Barabbas, in front of the anxious crowd next to Jesus. In utter dismay to Pilate, the crowd cried out for the blood of Jesus to be spilled via crucifixion. Following the public decision to crucify Jesus, he was escorted away by Roman soldiers who, subsequently, flogged and crucified him. Here, Mark notes the landmark of Jesus' public execution, the area of Golgotha (which means "place of the skull"). After public ridicule and Jesus' death, the prominent member of the Jewish High Council, Joseph of Arimathea, requested the deceased body of Jesus from Pilate. Mark concludes this chapter spelling out the burial of Jesus and noting that the women were aware of the burial site:

So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body,

wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of

rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.

Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus saw where he

was laid. ⁽⁶⁰⁾

Burials of this kind entail that the tomb was located on a hillside and was sealed with a disc-shaped stone that was rolled down into a groove. This type of burial would secure the deceased individual in his or her tomb leaving almost no chance of any single individual removing the tomb's portal seal.

It is generally acknowledged that Mark's source probably contained the elements of the Passion and burial account of Jesus. Support for this is found in Paul's own account of the Passion and burial in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and 15:4. Scholars note that Paul was in contact with pre-Markan source material on the Passion of Jesus when he affirms that Jesus was buried in, what has been evaluated above as, a tomb. Paul would have received this tradition within six years of the burial account (cf. Galatians 1:18). This would imply that Mark's source could not have been an embellishment or a forgery since there is not a significant accrual time for legendary development. Dr. William Lane Craig, the Alexander von Humboldt researcher on the Resurrection, summarizes recognized observations about Mark's account of the burial of Jesus when he states:

It is generally acknowledged that the burial account is part

of Mark's source material for the story of Jesus' passion.

This gives good reason to accept the burial as historical, on

[these] grounds: . . . (i) insufficient time for a legendary burial

of Jesus to arise; (ii) the presence of eyewitnesses who could

affirm the story; and (iii) Paul's probable knowledge of at

least the pre-Markan Passion story. ⁽⁶¹⁾

6.1.1.1.2 Matthew 27:1-66; Luke 23:1-56

In Matthew's account, the similar events depicted in Mark's rendition of the public sentencing, torture, and burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea provide multiple attestation to the events depicted. In fact, Matthew's account comes the closest to the Markan account and probably implies verisimilitude. However, the similarity also implies that Matthew relied on Mark's account for his conveyed layer of tradition. The liberal New Testament scholar and co-chairman of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan, states that there is a "massive scholarly consensus: Matthew used Mark as one of the two major sources in composing his gospel." ⁽⁶²⁾ The difference, however, between liberal affirmations of the multiple layers of tradition and the conservative approach is that liberal theologians believe that Matthew adapted Mark's story to simply appeal to his audience the same embellished account of Jesus' Passion and that this should supplant the conservative view that Matthew is an independent witness who uses Mark's account as a source. Dr. Crossan's opinion on the matter avails no evidence to the claim and contradicts his principle of multiple attestation. But the similarity of the account cannot be dismissed as mere forgery even if Matthew based his account on Mark (which is surely the case). That Matthew used Mark is not in question, but Matthew seems to chronicle events not depicted in Mark's account (e.g. "Pilate . . . took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd" - v. 24). This means that Matthew, while using Mark as a guide, was in touch with authentic information apart from Mark's account (or "M") which is consistent with the view that the author of Matthew was probably an eyewitness to some of these events. ⁽⁶³⁾

When Luke covers the arrest, trial, and burial of Jesus he adheres closer to Mark's and Matthew's tradition in the amount of detail allotted. Luke mirrors Mark's presentation of the arrest of Jesus but leaves out Judas' dialogue that "the one I shall kiss is the man; seize him" (RSV). John's Gospel also leaves out this dialogue but replaces it with a conversation between Jesus and the chief priests and Pharisees (John 18:4-9). When Jesus is before the Sanhedrin, Luke reflects most of what Mark and Matthew say here. The primary difference is that Luke does not mention the enigmatic reference of Jesus destroying the "temple" and "raising" it again "in three days." The other Synoptics and John do mention it. Luke also sticks closely with the information written in Mark and Matthew concerning the trial before Pontius Pilate. However, Luke and John give more detail by adding Pilate's words, "I find no crime in this man (John has 'him' here)." Luke goes on to do what the other Gospel writers did not do. He adds the calling together of Pilate and the chief priests where he has Pilate reprimanding the priests because of the lack of guilt in Jesus (23:13-16). When Jesus actually dies, Luke leaves out the "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" plea and the audience's reaction to it. However, Luke stays rather close to Mark and Matthew on the Passion narrative. Now, when Luke notes the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea, he mirrors Mark's account with the exception that Luke does not mention Pilate's conversation with the centurion about whether or not Jesus was dead (cf. Mark 15:44-45). Luke follows Matthew in implying Jesus' death and concludes with the Synoptics and John the removal of the body and the wrapping of it in a linen shroud.

6.1.1.1.3 John 18:28-19:1-42

Jesus' presence before Pontius Pilate and his public sentencing are basically restated by John in his telling of the account. However, John seems to add much more detail to the story. For example, Jesus' answer to Pilate's question "Are you the King of the Jews?" in Mark 15, Matthew 27, and Luke 23 is a straightforward "Yes." In John's account, Jesus questions Pilate's derivation of the phrase "King of the Jews" and explains that he is the proclaimed ruler of a kingdom that is "not of this world" (John 18:36). Because Mark also has Pilate use the phrase "King of the Jews" (15:9) then the reference is probably valid. In any event, the similarity of the account of Jesus' public sentencing is real (both mention the public sentencing of crucifixion, both note the ridicule of Jesus with the purple robe and the crown of thorns, both place his flogging just before his crucifixion, etc . . .) and John's account simply imports more detail into the cross-examination of Jesus. Concerning the public execution and burial of Jesus, John's account is simplified and consistent with Mark's account. There is Jesus' humiliation when on the cross, the attached sign "King of the Jews", the gambling of Jesus' garments, and the similarity of Jesus' death and burial by Joseph of Arimathea in a sealed tomb (vv. 38-42). The Johannine account, like the Markan account, basically chronicles public and private events that were verifiable by any interested pilgrim or critic.

The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John all detail the arrest, sentencing, public crucifixion, and burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea. There can be little doubt that such a public spectacle would have been contrived or that the burial by Joseph would have been a fabricated story given his prominent position in the Sanhedrin. That Joseph was a sympathizer of Jesus would also have been an unlikely invention. Further, the identification of Joseph with Arimathea has little import. It is a town with little significance and no theological symbolism. ⁽⁶⁴⁾ If the disciples were inventing a burial account, they would have simply noted that the disciples or Jesus' own family buried the body and left it as such. The ties with the Sanhedrin, a council that was hostile to Jesus and associated with Jewish antagonism, make the account least likely to be fictitious. Also, the fact that the female witnesses of the burial site were mentioned in the early pre-Markan source suggests that a fabrication would have been unlikely since they could have been cross-examined. Thus, the location of the burial site was known. Finally, there is an absence of a competing burial account. It seems that no Jewish polemic or critic of the Resurrection in the first century has ever contested the burial account. With these facts and observations about Jesus' burial, we can agree with theologian Wolfgang Trilling who observes that "It appears unfounded to doubt the fact of Jesus' honorable burial - even historically considered." ⁽⁶⁵⁾ Thus, it can be confidently concluded that Jesus was indeed buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb at a known location following his public trial and execution.

6.1.1.2 There is historical corroboration for the empty tomb of Jesus in Paul's writings.

The Gospels serve as primary written accounts of the life, ministry, death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus. They underscore the first century preaching that had brought so many to the influential teachings of Christianity. But, elsewhere in the New Testament, we find similar corroboration of the burial account of Jesus.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul writes about a "tradition" he "received" and "passed on" to his readers in Corinth. As noted elsewhere in this essay (see n. 33), the technical language used by Paul to denote the transmission and reception of an early tradition implies that Paul was exposed to an early circulation of the proclamation of Jesus' death, burial, and Resurrection. Judging by Paul's visit to Jerusalem, he would have received this tradition no later than 36 A.D. But 1 Corinthians 15 makes an important contribution about what was circulated within six years of the death of Jesus. Paul writes:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that 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 (vv. 3-4; NIV)

Scholars believe that Paul is using kai hoti ("and that") to chronologically connect a sequence of events preached elsewhere by Paul (cf. Acts 13). This means that Paul was noting a sequence of particular events that needed to be categorized as distinct ones. He first notes that Jesus was buried and then he notes that he was raised. If Paul wanted to merely emphasize Jesus' death he would have simply said, "he was buried and on the third day appeared to Cephas." ⁽⁶⁶⁾ Instead, Paul is wanting to bridge the event of Jesus' death with the specific event of Jesus' burial. This means that Paul is suggesting that Jesus did not only die but was buried in an empty tomb. Paul would have been quite familiar with the traditions surrounding the life, death, and burial of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-26) so that the empty tomb would have been where Jesus was buried. On the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb I shall have more to say.

6.1.1.3 Jesus' tomb was found empty by women on the Sunday following Jesus' death.

The pre-Markan Passion account recalls those events three days following Jesus' public execution, death, and burial. Mark refers to that account to detail what happened:

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of

James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus'

body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they

were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will

roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they

looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been

rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed

in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don't

be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was

crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.

(16:1-6; NIV).

The women had traveled to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus. When they had arrived they were told that "he is not here" and to "see the place where they laid him." The empty tomb narrative is inseparably part of the burial account on syntactic grounds and complements the burial narrative. Secondly, it would have been unusual to the Christian message had the account of Jesus' burial been circulated without victory at its end. That Jesus would have just been buried and that's all would have been peculiar indeed. Thirdly, the events here correspond with the events noted in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Therefore, it seems that the pre-Markan empty tomb account is probably historical. Some scholars point out that the uses of geographical references (with Galilee as a horizon) and personal names suggest Jerusalem as the source of this tradition. ⁽⁶⁷⁾

In addition, the pre-Markan material is probably old on the basis of Mark's usage of "the first day of the week" (16:2) instead of the later used "on the third day." The so-called "third-day" motif was widely predominant in Christian proclamations about the Resurrection of Jesus. If the pre-Markan source was part of a later tradition, it would have embraced the "third-day" usage in reference to Jesus' discovered empty tomb. But this is not what we find. Instead, we have the primitive reference of "the first day of the week" (a Jewish reference to be sure). This makes the tradition really old. Secondly, the pre-Markan account refers to the "high priest" without mentioning his name. ⁽⁶⁸⁾ It seems to be that the tradition assumes that those hearing it already understood that the current occupant was being referred to. But since Caiaphas was the high priest during Jesus' execution and burial, this means that the pre-Markan source had to have been circulated during his lifetime or 18-37 A.D.

Finally, the fact that women and not men are the first to discover the empty tomb probably accedes with the principle of embarrassment. In classic Judaism, women's social status in society was extremely low. They usually were not permitted to be legal witnesses because their testimony lacked the necessary qualifications. Some old Jewish sayings suggest that women were ranked lower than men. One old Jewish prayer states, "I thank Thee that I am not a woman." Still another saying says, "Sooner let the books of the Law be burnt than read by women." ⁽⁶⁹⁾ The social standing of women was low enough that they were regarded a little higher than belongings. But if this is true, then why persuade someone of a radical new fiction (such as Jesus' tomb being empty) that women alone first discovered? If the disciples of Jesus were truly attempting to fabricate an empty tomb narrative they would have made some prominent figure be the one to discover the empty tomb (e.g. Peter, Paul, or the Apostle John). The only explanation for this seemingly embarrassing account is that women did indeed first discover the empty tomb. Another interesting observation is that the male disciples were in Jerusalem hiding out while the women were tending to the body of Jesus as an act of their final devotion. But why humiliate the disciples this way unless it was women who really did discover the empty tomb to begin with? ⁽⁷⁰⁾ It must also be noted that the women who discovered the empty tomb were well known and are mentioned by name in the Gospel accounts. This precludes any legendary invention since any false testimony would have been exposed had the account been fabricated.

6.1.1.4 Mark's account of the burial and empty tomb narrative lacks theological and apologetic embellishment.

German New Testament critic and nineteenth century liberal scholar Rudolf Bultmann agrees that the pre-Markan account of the burial by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb wrapped in linen is not significantly embellished but, rather, a seemingly straightforward account of the burial of Jesus. ⁽⁷¹⁾ A comparison with any of the apocryphal gospels would show that such legendary development had not been incorporated into the earlier Gospels. These later fabrications speak of events that are theologically pregnant with garnished sayings that clearly mark the account with legendary fiction. By contrast, the pre-Markan passion narrative does not contain any legendary material which bespeaks a simple account of the discovery of the empty tomb.

6.1.1.4 Peter and John's subsequent visit to the empty tomb is probably historical.

As noted before, John, the son of Zebedee, is the most probable author of the fourth Gospel. John notes the visit of both himself and Peter to the empty tomb (John 20:3) which is also greatly attested by tradition (Luke 24:12, 24). Given the backdrop of Peter's denial in Jerusalem (Mark 14:66-72), it is probable that he and the disciples would want to go and investigate the tomb. In addition, Dr. Craig notes that "the absence of any evidence for the disciples' flight to Galilee also implies that they were in Jerusalem, which makes the visit to the empty tomb plausible." ⁽⁷²⁾

6.1.1.5 The empty tomb kerygma would have been ceased had the tomb still housed the corpse of Jesus.

Kerygma simply means "proclamation" which was designed to disseminate the message that the Lord had risen from the dead. ⁽⁷³⁾ The disciples' kerygma of the empty tomb would not have been possible if Jesus' body were still in the tomb. Even if the disciples did not investigate the tomb, to be sure the Roman officials and the Jewish authorities would have examined the tomb with an effort to expose the Jesus heresy. The Jewish authorities would have gladly exhumed the body and paraded it through the streets of Jerusalem for all to see. This would have capped the empty tomb myth forever. As history declares, precisely the opposite occurred. The Jewish authorities did discover the empty tomb and prompted an alternate explanation for the disappearance of Jesus' body (Matthew 28:12-13). Soon after, Christianity enjoyed a widespread acceptance beginning in the city where Jesus was publicly executed and buried. This means that the kerygma of the empty tomb must have been true.

That the tomb was found empty by women followers and subsequently by Peter and John is historically probable. But the enemies of Jesus also indirectly confirm the Christian kerygma that Jesus' tomb was indeed empty. Matthew 28:12-13 gives the following account:

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.'

Verse 15 contains the incidental reference that "this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day" which shows the apologetic developed by the Jews in order to provide an alternate explanation as to why the tomb was empty. But since this early Jewish polemic invents the theft of Jesus' body by the disciples, this implies that the tomb was indeed empty. Thus we have attestation through the enemies of Jesus that the tomb was empty.

6.1.1.7 The lack of veneration at the tomb of Jesus suggests that it was vacated.

In first century Palestine, it was common for Jews to show veneration (and even worship) at the tombs of prophets and great people of God. This can be illustrated by the women who visit the tomb to initiate final burial rites. But there is no evidence of anyone ever continuing a regular visitation to the tomb for the purposes of worship or veneration. Dr. Crossan suggests that the burial site of Jesus is unhistorical and perhaps Jesus was buried in a shallow graveyard. ⁽⁷⁴⁾ But this explanation is no good since we have already seen that there is good evidence for the burial in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea who is an unlikely invention. The only reason Crossan disavows the historicity of Joseph is because he believes that since the disciples are about to fabricate a resurrection account, they desire to pattern Old Testament passages that supposedly point to tomb burials (Deuteronomy 21:22-23; Joshua 10:26-27). However, there is no similarity between the accounts of Jesus and these Old Testament passages. ⁽⁷⁵⁾ Therefore, since the tomb was a historical burial site for Jesus and there existed no veneration at the tomb then it is probably the case that Jesus' corpse no longer remained in the tomb. ⁽⁷⁶⁾

6.1.2 The Appearances of Jesus Alive After his Death

After having surveyed the evidence for the empty tomb it is a little difficult to walk away disbelieving in the missing body of Jesus. The evidence, both from friendly and critical spectators, seems to militate against any conceptions of Jesus' body still remaining in the tomb. In this section we shall take a look at the New Testament evidence for the appearances made to various individuals under diverse circumstances. These appearances were characterized as post-mortem because of Jesus' death earlier that Friday. Sometimes the appearances seem quite numinous. By way of prefacing, the appearances of Jesus are widely accepted by the broad spectrum of New Testament critics, not just the usually conservative Evangelical scholars but also by radical left-wing scholars.

Before we can properly consider the events of the appearances we must terminologically grasp the ontology of the appearances. This is to ask what it was that witnesses were actually seeing. Was Jesus raised as some sort of disembodied spirit or as a physical, embodied being? Some reasons suggest that the Resurrection of Jesus entailed a physical, bodily Resurrection. First, the Jewish concept of a resurrection always pertained to the body of the deceased. To discuss resurrection in the context of a disembodied spirit would have been a contradiction in terms. If a Jew had an experience of a disembodied spirit, his reaction would have been to posit a translated or assumed person and not a corporeal person. ⁽⁷⁷⁾ Secondly, in the much disputed passage in 1 Corinthians 15 we find Paul referring to the Resurrection of Jesus as a Resurrection of a "spiritual body" (v. 44). Those who prefer an incorporeal understanding of the Resurrection surmise that the "spiritual body" is a "spirit being" while others maintain a metaphorical connotation for this saying. ⁽⁷⁸⁾ In response, the context does not provide for this interpretation and it is doubtful that the etymology of the saying preserves a metaphorical interpretation. With respect to its etymology, the Greek word for "body" is swma which refers to the physical anatomy of the individual. It is this word that is used in conjunction with pneumatikon (or "spiritual") in the phrase "spiritual body." But since the swma is a reference of the physical body then the term pneumatikon must have a reference beyond an anatomical spirit as it would contradict the phrase. It would be like saying a "square circle" or a "married bachelor." So this cannot possibly be what Paul is doing here. I think the context of 1 Corinthians sheds considerable light on the phrase as he uses it. Notice the series of contrasts in verses 42-49 (e.g. "perishable . . . imperishable," "dishonor . . . glory," and "earthly . . . heavenly"). The contrast of "spiritual body" is "natural body" (v. 44). But all of these terms are not references to the anatomy of the individual, they are references of orientation or dominion of the individual. Hence, the natural body is the body under the domination of the sinful and corruptible life while the spiritual body is the body under the domination of the spiritual and incorruptible life. In fact, this is precisely Paul's meaning elsewhere in the same letter (1