Essay/Term paper: The resurrection of jesus christ

Essay, term paper, research paper:  Religion

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ


No other event in history has been the object of as much scrutiny and
criticism as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Christ is
the basis upon which all Christianity stands. If the resurrection never
happened, then there would be no Christianity, as the Apostle Paul says in 1
Corinthians 15:14, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless
and so is your faith." This is why opponents of the Christian faith have tried
to attempt to discredit the Biblical account of the resurrection. Of the many
theories of the resurrection, the Biblical account is the only historically
reliable and possible explanation of the resurrection.
The historical reliability of the Bible is the first matter that needs
to be discussed. There are three criteria that the military historian C.
Sanders lists as principles for documentary historical proof: the
bibliographical test, internal evidence test, and the external evidence test
(McDowell 43). The bibliographical test is the examination of text by the
documents that have reached us. The reliability of the copies of the New
Testament is tested by the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time intervals
between the time in which the piece of literature was written and our earliest
copy. There are more than 5,300 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and
10,000 Latin vulgate manuscripts, not to mention the other various translations.
Totally there are around 24,000 total MSS for the New Testament. The next
closest document in respect to MSS is the "Illiad" by Homer, with 643
manuscripts(McDowell 43).
The textual reliability then continues with respect to the time interval
between the original and the first known manuscript. The shorter the interval,
the more reliable the text is. Homer's "Illiad" was written in 900 BC and the
earliest copy was found in 400 BC. This is compared to the New Testament that
was written from 40-100 AD. The first known manuscript of the New Testament
was found in 125 AD. This twenty-five year gap is very impressive as compared
to the Illiad's five hundred year span (McDowell 45). This first test has
basically shown that the text which people have in their possession is
essentially the original text.
The second test is the internal evidence test. The internal evidence
test proves whether or not what was recorded is credible and to what extent. Dr.
Louis Gottschalk, former professor of history at the University of Chicago,
states the ability of the writer to tell the truth is helpful in determining
credibility. The "ability to tell the truth" is related in two ways. They are
the witness's nearness chronologically and geographically (McDowell 51-52). The
New Testament accounts were written by men who were eyewitnesses or related the
story from eyewitness accounts. Chronologically speaking, the Gospels were all
written while people, other than Christians, who had been eyewitnesses to the
life of Christ were still alive. For the most part the non-Christian
eyewitnesses were opponents of the faith. The resulting effect of this would
be the necessity for the disciples to relate the life of Christ accurately due
to the fact that any inaccuracies would have allowed opponents to discredit
Christianity right from the beginning (McDowell 52-53).
The third test to prove historical reliability is that of exterior
evidence. Gottschalk defines external evidence as "conformity or agreement with
other known historical or scientific facts...(McDowell 54)." Other writers are
a great source of exterior evidence. The writings of historian Eusebius, and
Iraneous, Bishop of Lyons, have confirmed the writings of the Apostle John.
These men did their historical writing between 130 and 180 AD. They researched
scrolls from the time of Christ. Archaeology also provides exterior evidence.
Archaeologist Joseph Free states, "Archaeology has confirmed countless passages
which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical and contradictory to known
facts (McDowell 54)." A wonderful example of this is found in Paul's letter to
the Roman's. In this letter he makes reference to the city treasurer, Erastus.
A pavement fracture was found during the excavations of Corinth, in 1929, on it
was inscribed the words: "ERASTVS PRO:AED:P:STRAVIT ('Erastus, curator ofpublic
buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.')(McDowell 110)"
Archaeologist F.F. Bruce states that this man and the man Paul refers to are one
in the same (McDowell 110). These three tests when applied to the Bible show it
as the most historically reliable text known to man, thus the events found upon
the pages of the Bible are actual historically proven events.
In light of these facts there are still many theories other than that of
the Biblical account. Three of them include the "Visionary" theory, the theft
theory, and the wrong tomb theory. The first theory is that of Strauss, that the
appearances of Jesus after His death on the cross were "visions generated by the
imaginations of the disciples (Ramsey 48)." This may be the easiest of all the
theories to discredit. First of all it does not take into account the inability
of the disciples to grasp this idea that Christ was alive and to recognize Him
for who He was (Ramsey 48). There were many doubters even among those who
walked with Jesus for His three years of ministry. The best known is the story
of Thomas, who didn't believe until he had touched the wounds on Christ's hands
(Jn 20:25). There is also the fact that Christ revealed Himself to a group of
people equaling 500 (1 Cor. 15:6), it would be ludicrous to assume that all of
them had seen the same hallucination.
The next major theory is one developed by B.H. Streeter, who states that
the tomb was definitely empty, however the resurrection was not the cause, but
theft (Ramsey 50). Streeter thinks that the disciples had stolen the body to
prove the supernatural claims of Jesus (Wells 206). This theory is also easily
reputed due to two major facts: the Roman Guard and the boulder. First for
anyone to steal the body of Christ the thieves would have to get by the Roman
Guard Unit. According to Josh McDowell, a magna cum laude of Talbot Theological
Seminary, the Roman Guard of that day is considered one of the greatest fighting
forces of all time. A unit consisting of sixteen, eight at a time would guard
the tomb, and every four hours they would be relieved. The Guards were laden
with the best armor and weapons of the time. Their only punishment was death,
these men did not fail assignments (McDowell 227-229). According to Streeter
this unit must have fallen asleep, which if caught, would result in death. Next
is the boulder, it weighed between one and a half to two tons (McDowell 226).
The moving of this boulder would have been a very difficult thing to do without
waking up the Roman Guard.
The third theory is that of Dr. Kirsop Lake who states that the women
who had first seen the empty tomb had gone to the wrong tomb (Ramsey 51). This
theory lacks plain common sense and does not take into account the broken Roman
seal. First these women had followed the tomb owner and the Roman Guard to the
tomb, to see where Jesus was buried (Lk. 23:55). For these women to have gone to
the wrong tomb on that first Easter Sunday then the owner of the tomb, and the
Roman Guard would have all gone to the wrong tomb. The broken Roman seal is
however the icing on the cake. This seal was equivalent to that of police lines
today. The Roman seal was placed on the tomb after being inspected by a guard.
The seal was a cord that stretched across the boulder that was placed at the
tomb entrance, and was sealed at either end with clay. Finally the clay was
stamped with the official mark of the Roman governor (McDowell 230). The seal
was used to show authenticity, to prove that Jesus was inside the tomb (McDowell
230). If the women had gone to the wrong tomb there would have been no broken
seal, because it was not common for dead bodies to be protected by the Roman
government.
The Biblical account of Christ's resurrection is the only historically
possible version of the resurrection. The other theories that have been
introduced all have large holes in them. Many do not take into account all of
the facts of the resurrection, because they do not view the Bible as the
historically reliable piece of literature that it is. When one takes into
account the reliability of the Bible, and the many facts of the resurrection it
is impossible to conclude any other theory than that of the Bible. Christ died
on the cross for man's sins. On the third day He rose from the grave, proving
all He had preached and taught. The fact of the matter is this: all the
opponents of Christians at the time of Christ's resurrection had to do was find
the body and march through the city square. They weren't able to, because it
wasn't there, He has arisen, and that's a fact!