Why We Believe

The teaching of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead has a precursor in Jewish teaching. There are at least two references to resurrection in the Old Testament. The first presentation of resurrection is in Daniel which states, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. (Dan 12:2 NIV)” Both Jesus and Paul affirm Daniel’s prophetic words in the New Testament (cf. John 5:29; Acts 24:15).

Judaism and Christianity both understood the resurrection as a bodily resurrection (not just a spirit) because of the Hebrew understanding of the oneness of the body and soul (or mind). It is understood from the book of Genesis that the body is a “living soul” (KJV) or “living being” (NIV, NAS). “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” (Gen 2:7 NIV)

The second testimony of resurrection in Isaiah is even clearer: “But your dead will live, LORD; their bodies will rise-- let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy-- your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead. (Isa 26:19 NIV)” However, the Jewish understanding of resurrection was that it would be a mass resurrection at the end of the age. It was a surprise to Jesus’ Jewish disciples when confronted with the resurrection of the solitary Man Jesus!

The Christian’s faith rests on the resurrection. If there were no historical resurrection the Christian faith would be useless! According to Paul in an exchange with governor Festus in the book of Acts:

“That the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles." At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane."

"I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.” (Act 26:23-26 NIV)

And in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul makes abundantly clear that Jesus resurrection is central to the Christian faith: “But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” (1Co 15:12-14 NIV)

To know if Jesus really rose from the dead, we need to use the inductive method and follow the evidence like a crime scene investigator. If the evidence is cumulative and clear supporting the resurrection, then the resurrection most likely happened!

William Lane Craig in “Did Jesus Rise From the Dead” quotes C. Behan McCullagh’s seven general criteria for judging what historical reconstruction is the best and applies them to the resurrection as a plausible explanation of known events.¹

1. The hypothesis, together with other true statements, must imply further statements describing present, observable data.
2. The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope (that is, imply a greater variety of observable data) than rival hypotheses.
3. The hypothesis must have greater explanatory power (that is, make the observable data more probable) than rival hypotheses.
4. The hypothesis must be more plausible (that is, be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths) than rival hypotheses.
5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc (that is, include fewer new suppositions about the past not already implied by existing knowledge) than rival hypotheses.
6. The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs (that is, when conjoined with accepted truths, imply fewer false statements) than rival hypotheses.
7. The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling conditions (2) through (6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis, after further investigation, exceeding it in meeting these conditions.

The New Testament Documents

First of all, the historical documents witnessing to the resurrection were written with remarkable consistency by eyewitnesses or within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. Most historians are pretty much agreed that the last New Testament document written was the gospel of John before the end of the first century. We even have a fragment from the gospel of John that is a copy 25 years removed from the end of the first century!²

The burial is historically reliable. The evidence for the burial was reported in extremely early material. For example, Mark’s story is based on eyewitness accounts and lacks legendary development. If they were made-up, there would have been events that had some connection to theological concepts. But the narratives are instead bare-bones: “Guy dies public death. People encounter same guy alive later.”³

The New Testament itself claims that the events recorded in the gospels and Acts can be attested by eyewitnesses (Acts 1:1-3). Historical research as well as the location and documentation of a multitude of manuscripts and scripture portions have caused most scholars to conclude that our present New Testament was completed by the end of the first century.

The earliest Scriptures were Paul’s epistles: Galatians (48), 1 and 2 Thessalonians (50), Philippians (54), 1 and 2 Corinthians (54-56), Romans (57), Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians (c. 60), the pastoral epistles--1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (64)⁴

Gospels and Acts: Mark, written in Rome in the early 60s, Matthew (85-90), Luke-Acts (80-85), John (sometime in the 90s). FF Bruce gives earlier dates: Luke-Acts (60-70), Matthew (after 70 AD). The epistles of John and Revelation (before 96), James and Jude (close of 1st century), Hebrews and the epistle of Peter (before 65)

There is little room for doubt that the New Testament documents are reliable and historical primary sources. Only those who a priori (such as the Jesus Seminar fellows) disallow any possibility of the supernatural would dare contradict this conclusion. But logic would require those who disallow the reliability of the New Testament to be consistent with the rest of our sources for the history of antiquity.