History cannot Prove Jesus’ Resurrection

Anyone that has studied history as an investigative discipline (i.e. the historical method) will know that history cannot prove Jesus’ resurrection, even if it happened. The investigative form of history is the form that concerns itself with the methods and the question how do we know, instead of the body of knowledge. For those that haven’t studied history as an investigative discipline, let me explain why it can’t prove Jesus’ resurrection, firstly with some questions:

  1. What sort of things do historians accept as evidence?
  2. What is the goal of history?

I am scientifically minded, so when I think about historical evidence I immediately think of archaeology and other physical things. These are very important. But written texts are also important, and when it comes to the Bible it is probably worth me focussing on the nature of written evidence. A document from the same time as the event it records is always useful; this is called a contemporaneous document. But one contemporaneous document wouldn’t be sufficient; you’d need a few of them that agree. Documents that agree are consistent documents. You also want them to be unbiased and independent i.e. not records about the King from his servants, and not written by people that corroborated with each other. Unbiased, independent, contemporaneous and consistent documents.

The written accounts of the gospels are not contemporaneous documents. The earliest of them is sixty years after the fact. That might not seem like much, but sixty years ago it was 1953. My parents weren’t born. My granddad was a boy. If my mum tells me a story of my granddad’s childhood, as my granddad recited it to her, would you believe I could then write it down in a way that accurately described the true events? What if my aunty and my uncle did the same thing with their children (my cousins) and our stories all had subtle, but mutually exclusive differences; would you still believe we’d written a reliable account? Given that our accounts are demonstrably unreliable, would you trust the information in it to guide big decisions in your life?

This is the issue; not only are the gospels not contemporaneous documents, there are quite big disagreements between them. Did Jesus die the day before the Passover (as according to John) or after the Passover was eaten (as according to Mark)? Did this happen at noon (John) or at 9am (Mark)? Did Jesus carry his cross all the way, or did Simon of Cyrene help? Did both the robbers beside Jesus mock him, or did one mock him while the other defended him? Did the curtain in the temple rip before or after Jesus died?

With regard to the resurrection: who went to the tomb on the third day: Mary, alone; Mary with other women? If it was Mary with other women, the gospels don’t even agree who those women were or how many there were. Had the stone already been rolled away? Did they see a man, two men or an angel? Were the disciples to stay in Jerusalem or to go to Galilee to seek Jesus? Did the disciples never immediately leave Jerusalem? Did the women tell anyone?

So I don’t find the gospels reliable: non-contemporaneous, non-consistent documents written by non-eye witness Christians (i.e. potentially heavily biased) and all based on the same stories that have been circulating for decades (i.e. not independent).

But the next question was “what is the goal of history?” And the answer is to come up with what most likely happened. We can never know things through history with the same confidence we can know other scientific facts with (and science can’t be known to the same confidence as maths). But based on the evidence a historian’s job is to decide the most likely thing to have happened. I want to give an example of this from an archaeology class at my college before moving back to the I’m-an-obnoxious-atheist thread of my blog: the archaeological evidence was monkey skeletons and stone spearheads. The students’ conclusion was that this particular tribe of monkeys had become sufficiently technologically advanced to destroy itself; that the monkey had created stone tool and gone to war and died out. On the evidence they had, that was not the most likely answer. The most likely answer was that a species we know to already have access to stone tool (humans) killed them, and didn’t suffer any fatalities.

So now, even if we were convinced that the tomb was found empty, is a resurrection really the most likely answer? Is a supernatural event more likely than someone who sympathised with Jesus taking his body and burying it somewhere more dignified, or more discrete. Or perhaps a traditionalist took his body to bury it in a common grave, consistent with tradition (although, it would have been illegal at the time). In Matthew 27 Jesus is given a bitter wine to drink, it is more likely that Jesus’ took a drug that make him appear dead (to the medical experts of the day) and simply recovered instead of having been actually dead for a few days before God resurrected him?

When we are talking about the most likely option, a resurrection simply doesn’t cut it. History cannot prove it happened, even if it did.

(The New Testament Scholar, professor Bart Ehrman had already done most of the leg work for this post. Although, I’ve had to go to an online version of the King James Bible to confirm it. In doing that I discovered that I am currently staying in the first hotel I have ever stayed in without a copy of the New Testament in it)

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “History cannot Prove Jesus’ Resurrection”

  1. “When we are talking about the most likely option, a resurrection simply doesn’t cut it. History cannot prove it happened, even if it did.”

    It is reasonable to conclude that it did not happen, especially in view of other tidbits. The forgeries which were added to make it seem more truthful would only be required if there were not enough evidence already. The only contemporaneous documents do not give witness to an actual Jesus figure, rather only to the rucus of some folk who believed in a Jesus character. The case for the historicity of Jesus is built entirely on heresay and second and third hand knowledge. The fact that no contemporaneous writers managed to write about all the dead people walking around on the day of the supposed resurrection is telling in a way that none of the supposed evidence is. Jeruselem full of zombies? That didn’t make the 6 o’clock news?

    The information that we find is not all that should be accounted for. We need also to account for what should be expected if the story were true.

    Good post

    1. I like how the word “gospel” has made into even secular language to mean truth, yet on any thorough investigation it seems to be entirely made up.
      The lack of reports on friendly zombies is a good point. But given how many people are resurrected in the Bible the real questions are (a) why should we care about Jesus’ resurrection? And (b) why aren’t people resurrected all the time now, in the presence of cameras and scientific and medical knowledge.

  2. You may be missing a major point here. If the resurrection could be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, what need would there be for faith? Belief and faith is the line drawn in the sand. Some people just aren’t given a measure of faith. It is a gift from God. The Bible says the things of God are foolishness to those perishing. I often wonder why people like Bart Ehrman spend so much time on things they really don’t believe in.

    1. Is it not a capricious and hateful thing to gift one person with faith (and thus save them from Hell) but not gift another?
      Those that haven’t been gifted with faith, but with a personal experiential piece of evidence (that is not accessible to the rest of us), are they going to be saved for believing, or are they going to Hell for not having faith?
      People like Bart Ehrman have a job studying the Bible. He’s a professor. People like me enjoy the intellectual game. It’s not like all literary critics believe the books they write reviews of…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s