A Believer Objectively Comments on the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

By Mark McFall

Can a believer even look at evidence surrounding Jesus’ resurrection objectively? While skeptics try to pick themselves up from the floor at the mere thought of such a notion I’ll ask that they entertain me on this for a few minutes as I layout the things I think about regarding what is reported. As for my Christian brothers/sisters, some of what I say here may not rest easy with some of you, so I ask that you too entertain my thoughts knowing that this author’s intent is not to preach to the choir. With that…

Skeptics often chide Christians for believing resurrection stories they hear from every Tom, Dick, and Harry, but who can blame them given the many outlandish resurrection claims that come from pulpits and/or out of popular charismatic TV Networks such as TBN (e.g. claims made by Benny Hinn, etc.). It is not all uncommon to hear from those outlets resurrection stories or predictions that always seem to be in some far off country. Such over-the-top and continuous antics by high-profile persons in the Christian community leave Christianity in a no better light than the atheist who argues it is more believable that aliens are trying to trick humans into believing God exists thru unexplained happenings than it is to believe God exists (e.g. see: Krueger, What is Atheism, pg. 95; & ITW article in review of Krueger's book). Such extreme outlooks, in my opinion, display an unhealthy balance on both ends of the spectrum.

This article is different in many ways because the author finds himself in a peculiar spot. You see, outright I don’t believe resurrections happen, yet I am somehow able to find myself not only seriously contemplating the idea of Jesus’ resurrection on an ongoing basis but also actually holding to the belief that such an impossible feat occurred. For me, this belief doesn’t rest on the notion that because the "Bible says it happened: it happened." If it did, then I would also believe all the other resurrections in the Bible, and quite frankly I can’t bring myself to believe certain reports given the nature in which they are told. For instance, the report in Matthew 27:51-53 that states many saints came out of their tombs and entered Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection. This has a fictional apocalyptic ring that I just don’t buy if literalness is the intent. While I am aware incidents like this in the Bible have points of contact with myth, the reports that specifically surround Jesus and His resurrection, though admittedly not without elements of deficiency themselves, are simply unparalleled in realism and literary strength as they are collectively far superior to known accounts with a similar thrust. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, or at least appear to do so, I find the type of evidence surrounding His resurrection extremely perplexing given the level it reaches on an ancient evidential and comparative scale.

For many skeptics, the mere contemplation that there are comparative accounts is enough to come to the opinion the reports that surround Jesus are a fictional spin-off. However, this is rather shallow thinking as true stories can (and do) occur, despite prior similar fictional storyline. Nowhere is that more explanative than in Brian Lawson’s evaluation of the debate I had with Farrell Till on the parallels that are said to exist between Osiris and Jesus (See: A "Sigh" About Osiris). Skeptics like Farrell Till charge that because similar fictional resurrection concepts exist in other religious contexts, which predate Christianity, Jesus’ resurrection must also be a fable. That type of argumentation loses force when one is reminded that it is not at all uncommon for things to take shape in reality out of what was mere fantasy. As Brian points out, there are existing similarities between the fictional novels: From the Earth to the Moon (dated 1865), Round the Moon (dated 1870), and the famous recognized fact of the Apollo 11 flight to the moon (dated 1969).

Yes, it is no secret that various ancient resurrection concepts are in the air, but Jesus’ resurrection stands out as the single best-attested resurrection in history with the least amount of mythical overtones. Mythical resurrection figures like Osiris, Inannan, Zalmoxis in Herodotus, Horus, Dionysus, Attis, Mithras, Adonis, and the Dioscuri brothers, are rightly consigned to the mythical realm by scholars because the evidence supporting their resurrections do not rise to a serious consideration level. The resurrection of Jesus, however, is undergirded by collective evidences that should cause just about anybody familiar with mythical stories a moment of pause. There exists too much information of postmortem observances embedded in documents known to have, with various debatable degrees, historical value; to simply dismiss the data surrounding Jesus out-of-hand because there is a familiar human concept of hope beyond the grave, is to ignore the evidential weight of what is reported.

In 1Corinthians 15:3-5, we read:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

The basic message of this passage is identified by objective scholars (as well as informed skeptics) to have been in circulation just two to eight years after Jesus is thought to have been killed. Though the document that contains this passage, 1Corninthians, is dated some twenty years after Jesus’ death, the scholarly consensus favors the idea that its recollective-message precedes 1Corinthians by at least ten years. If one were to put this evidence on the table for comparison with other ancient resurrection figures it would be discovered that it stands out in value due to its close recorded proximity; simply put, no other resurrection figure has an undergirding feature such as this.

Paul, in an attempt to head off contemporary criticisms pertaining to this report, appealed to "more than five hundred" people who, he says, witnessed a single appearance, and disbelievers could substantiate the claim by interviewing some of the witnesses still living (1Cor. 15:6). Unfortunately, though many of these witnesses could have been easily sought out in Paul’s day, they were left unnamed. To modern readers this supportive argument carries little evidential value because the witnesses can never be identified. However, when one takes into consideration the magnitude of this appeal, in light of the fact that contemporary critics could have cited Paul on his erroneous assertion but did not, the validity of his appeal to more than 500 witnesses can reasonably be seen in a favorable light even though unnamed. Nevertheless, whether this argumentative appeal is true or not, it rises to a consideration unparalleled by evidences surrounding other reported resurrection figures due to its very nature.

Interestingly, given the implied physicality of Paul’s perception above, Paul is also recorded as conveying a different perception related to Jesus being without physicality (Acts 9:3-5; 22:6-8; 26:13-15). As we will see below, others also had these two perceptions which suggest that Jesus passed into a mode of being that was superior to all obstacles.

Objectively commenting….on Mark

In the account identified as Mark, three women who sought to care for the lifeless body of Jesus were told by a "young man" who was present at the burial site (vs. 5) that Jesus "has risen" (vs. 6) and they would soon see him in "Galilee" (vs. 7). This encounter, odd as it is, left the women "gripped" with fear (vs. 8). Unfortunately, this "young man" is left unnamed which naturally raises suspicions for the modern reader. As a further negative, this particular resurrection narrative is cut-short when the women leave and the recorder pens his last words that "they said nothing to anyone" (Mk. 16:8). For modern readers, who are familiar with the other Gospel accounts, this statement appears perplexing as each of the other Gospel writers specifically note that the women went quickly to report the empty tomb to the disciples (Mt 28:8; Lu 24:9-10; John 20:2). Why Mark is under a different impression, we can only speculate. Nevertheless, as just mentioned, this writer abruptly ends his version at verse 8 (that the original Mark ended at verse 8 is the opinion of the majority of mainline scholars). While obviously this abrupt ending is a set back as it would have been useful to glean more information from this particular writer, a second writer stepped in shortly thereafter. This next writer pens a resurrection narration of postmortem appearances, which include sightings by Mary Magdalene and three other separate observances by some close to Jesus who had heard but remained skeptical of His resurrection. (Mk. 16:9-14). Though this secondary writer quickly changes his tone to include talk about an aberrant baptismal rite, demons, picking up serpents, and drinking deadly poison in conjunction with his view of being a true Christian (Mk. 16:15-18), the substance of the reported resurrection rightly overshadows these strange theological concerns.

In the account identified as Matthew (see: Ch. 28), the writer elaborates on the expected Galilean appearance to which the first draft of Mark alludes. Like the Markan account, he initially mentions women (two are named here: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary) as being first on the scene at the tomb. However, as a variant version to Mark (as well as Luke and John), Matthew reports the tomb was guarded (Matt. 27:64). Additionally, the "young man" recounted in Mark’s account is introduced by Matthew as a type of "angel" for an unknown reason. It is this "angel," coupled with the rolling of the stone and a severe earthquake that cause the guards who are securing the tomb to faint (Mt. 28:4), for there was as yet no appearance of the resurrected Jesus.

From there, this angel informs the arriving women that Jesus has risen and that He will meet with them on the Mountain of Galilee; the women then depart to inform others close to Jesus what they have learned. Therewith, Jesus suddenly appears before the group instructing his disciples to again meet with Him on the Mountain of Galilee. Falling to the ground, His disciples take "hold of His feet and worship Him" (Mt. 28:9); and nothing more in the text is said regarding that. Incidentally, Matthew, like Mark and Luke, differ from John just prior to this encounter as John first has the disciples heading off to verify the empty tomb.

After arriving on the Mountain of Galilee, as instructed, Jesus appears to them but now Matthew records that while some believed Jesus was in a resurrected state, others were more skeptical (Mat. 28:17). Thereafter, like the secondary writer of Mark, though not on a bizarre level, the writer then expresses theological statements in conjunction with authority that would naturally accompany a figure who appeared to be superior to the natural processes of death.

Objectively commenting….on Luke

In the account identified as Luke, the author is under the impression that there were two men who appeared at the empty tomb (instead of one as recounted by Mark; or one angel as recounted by Matthew) after the women had arrived (Luke suggests more than three women Lk. 24:10). According to the text, these men had given the women the idea Jesus had "risen" (Lk. 24:6) by reminding them of Jesus’ words related to rising on the third day (Lk. 24:7). Here, I find it odd that the women appear unaware of this possible rising as Matthew records that that is precisely why Pilate sent his guard to watch the tomb (Mt. 27:63-65). Anyway, like Mark and Matthew (but unlike John), Luke reports no initial sighting at or around the tomb, but only that the women were led to believe that Jesus had risen due to the said circumstances. As the women went to tell the others of these things, Luke reports that they received the women’s comments and excitement as "nonsense" (Lk. 24:11).

Later that same day, Luke records that while a man named Cleopas and another unnamed individual were on their way to Emmaus the resurrected Jesus joined them in their journey but the men did not recognize Him. According to Luke, their eyes became altered in such a way that they were "prevented from recognizing" the person traveling with them. Luke explains that during this journey the figure conversed with the two men about the empty tomb, (which by that time had made ancient headlines), and attempted to persuade them of the idea that the Messiah was to suffer for a time and then enter glory as communicated in the Old Testament (Lk. 24:26). As they entered Emmaus, the men requested that this figure join them for dinner. At dinner, this figure apparently broke bread in such a manner that it caused the men to realize this was actually Jesus, and once they became aware, Luke records that Jesus simply "vanished from their sight (Lk. 24:31).

From there, these men went to find others who were close to Jesus to "relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread" (Lk. 24:35). As they were relating their experiences to an untold number of disciples, Luke reports that Jesus appeared in their midst (Lk. 24:36). According to the text, the group became startled and frightened, so Jesus speaks to them to calm their nerves by saying: "why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Lk. 24:38-39). Due to the impossibility of such a feat in light of His disciples witnessing His death, Luke records that this type of tangible evidence was not enough to convince those closest to Him that He was in a resurrected state (Lk. 24:41). Instead, the men naturally continue to assume that the figure standing before them is some kind of ghostly apparition; after all, it’s easier to assume an apparition of a sort than it is to assume a corpse literally came back to life. Taking it to the next level, Jesus requests something to eat in an effort to prove that which is more difficult to believe (Lk. 24:42-43). As they marvel at Jesus eating, He turns to the scriptures and takes the same line of reasoning as he did with the two men earlier, by relating the idea that everything in the Old Testament points toward Him, and that the Messiah was to suffer and rise again from the dead (Lk. 24:46-46). It is at this point, that Luke says their minds became open and they began to understand everything that was unfolding.

After going out as far as Bethany and conversing with them further, Jesus departs from their presence. As to how Jesus parted, the manuscript tradition varies as one has Him just leaving while the other has Him carried up to heaven (Lk. 24:51; see: NAS vs KJV). Since the former is more believable we ought to embrace that version even if Luke actually wrote the latter. As we know, Luke has natural leanings toward Jesus’ divinity and is therefore prone to exaggeration thru heaven bound imagery as we see by his other report in Acts 1:9 where Jesus ascends into the clouds. The same cannot be said of the resurrection observances noted above as they have all the earmarks of objective reporting as disbelief is freely mentioned. Of conflicting interest with the book of Acts, is a discrepancy between mentioned time-frames: while Acts reports that all these "convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3-4) happened over a 40 day period, the Gospel of Luke reports (by context) that everything related to Jesus’ resurrection happened in a single day.

In the account identified as John, there are actually two separate streams of reports embedded in the ending of this work. Chapter 20 relates resurrection appearances that occurred in the Jerusalem area, and Chapter 21 relates resurrection appearances roughly 75 miles away in the Galilee/Tiberias area. According to critical scholarship, these accounts were penned by two different authors, which, like Mark, increase the value of the document.

In Chapter 20, this author’s version has Mary Magdalene going to the tomb only to find it empty, and then has her departing to tell the disciples of her finding. For John, this is an important element in the story as we can easily visualize thru his emphasis their responsive excitement to verify the empty tomb. While John goes on to give a pretty detailed account of their responsive desire to verifying the empty tomb, it is quite interesting that the other Gospels say nothing of it. After racing to the empty tomb, John records that at least one disciple became a believer as he merely peered into the empty tomb (Jn. 20:8). There was no need to experience a resurrection appearance in order to believe for this disciple. John then makes a general statement in the next verse: "for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead" (Jn. 28:9). Did this one person have that understanding? We are not told.

Nevertheless, in agreement with Luke, though not in time frame, John reports that there were two angels who were having a brief discussion with Mary (after the disciples had left). Thereafter, Jesus suddenly appeared before her though somehow she was unable to recognize Him. Instead, Mary supposed Him to be the gardener but soon realized it was Jesus. John then says that Mary began to cling to Jesus, but Jesus insisted that she not touch Him for He had not yet ascended to His Father. Oddly, not only does this insistence conflict with Luke’s report above that Jesus requested his disciples to touch him (Lk. 24:39), but it also conflicts with what this particular author reports himself as we shall see shortly.

John then relates an appearance in which Jesus passes thru a wall/door to show himself as living to a group of disciples (Jn. 20:19). In effort to prove that His corpse literally revived, Jesus shows his hands and side for verification (Jn. 20:20). One disciple, Thomas, is not with them and when he is informed of Jesus’ resurrection, he states: "unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe" (Jn. 20:25). Of interest at this point is that Thomas needed more evidence to become a believer, much more than the unnamed disciple whom simply peered into the empty tomb. After eight days Jesus again passed thru a wall/door where his disciples were located to show himself in a physical bodily state and Thomas was present. The author of John then records that Jesus said to Thomas: "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing" (Jn. 20:27). While Thomas apparently needed more evidence than the unnamed viewer mentioned above, in contrast Luke recorded that even after Jesus showed and offered Himself to be touched His disciples were still in disbelief (Lk. 24:41). Thus proving, everybody has a different level of understanding when it comes to weighing evidence for belief.

In the account recorded by the author of Chapter 21, we have a much different manifestation in which Jesus is not so apt to prove His resurrection presence; probably because, according to this recorder, this is now the third visible manifestation. In this scene, Jesus is standing on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias and calls out to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, and two other apostles, who are fishing about a 100 yards out (Jn. 21:8), and instructs them to cast their net on the opposite side of the boat. Not realizing that it is Jesus, but yet heeding the words of this individual, they cast their net to the other side and instantly catch a full load. From that circumstance, Peter makes the exclamation that the person standing on the shore is the Lord/Jesus. Dragging their catch as fast as they can back to shore, but not fast enough for Peter as he apparently bailed ship to beat his shipmates there, they arrive on land and notice a charcoal fire already burning and fish cooking. Strangely, perhaps because there’s not enough fish cooking, Jesus has the group put their own fish on the grill for breakfast. During this feasting time "the disciples did not venture to question Him" (Jn. 21:12), but the text goes on to report that Jesus questioned them as to their level of love for Him while persuading them to follow Him. The text then ends with the author signifying the truth of not only his report but the report of Chapter 20 and notes that there were many other things that Jesus did but that the details were too lengthy to include.

It has been said by many conservative scholars and well-meaning popular Christians that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is simply "overwhelming." As an informed Christian, who does believe that Jesus rose from the dead, I’d like to say that this belief does not come easy for me. I find the evidence, though superior on a comparative scale, not to be on an overwhelming level given the impossibility of such a feat, and it is also obvious that some of the disciples who actually witnessed and interacted first-hand with the resurrected Jesus had a difficult time believing it too. In my opinion, those who put forth the notion that the evidence is overwhelming fail to take into account the varying degrees in which people individually process information. The most that can be said is that the resurrection of Jesus is the best attested as far as resurrections go.

Yes, as scholars of varying views contend, the historicity of the empty tomb is very strong, but the resurrection of Jesus is outside of historical reach and in the realm of reasoned faith. That is, reasoning from an evidential point to a seemingly logical conclusion. Naturally, since each human mind works in an individual manner to solve mysteries, it is no wonder that various theories have been put forth as to why the tomb was empty; from the myth theory, wrong tomb and swoon theory (the belief that Jesus really wasn’t killed but rather woke up in the coolness of tomb and somehow exited), to the theory that He was secretly buried in an unknown location in the ground, and finally to offering the explanation that He had a twin brother; each in an effort to come up with a plausible scenario for witnesses viewing Him alive after He was killed. Theories of this sort are numerous and should not be detested by Christians as an awareness of these views will help us better understand our own.

For me, if I compare belief in Jesus’ resurrection to belief in God, I find it quite easy (even natural) to believe in God given the unknowable vastness of the universe and the Earth’s apparent uniqueness within it. I find it easy to believe Jesus actually lived, and had a unique relationship with this God to the extent that He was generally and correctly (in my view) identified as the Son of God who came to help build good human relations and die for our sins. I find it far more difficult however, to believe that His body returned to life at a point in time when the smell of a rotting corpse is at the verge of penetrating the air. Honestly, if I wasn’t aware of the general background surrounding His public ministry and teachings, this essay would have quite a different focus. In my view, the resurrection narratives by themselves do not provide me with enough evidence to fully convince, but what I know given the totality of the Gospel versions and their individual portraits of Jesus’ public life and God-orientated teaching along with resurrection narratives that persuades me into belief.

Something significant happened after Jesus’ death to the extent that many came under the impression that Jesus returned to their presence. Whether His appearance was with or without physicality (Acts 9:3-5; 22:6-8; 26:13-15 vs. Jn. 20:27; 20:17; Mt. 28:9; Lk. 24:39, 41-42) or transcending between the two properties, His presence was nonetheless experienced by enough people to draw attention to the fact that something out of ordinary had occurred. Many lives were indeed changed by these occurrences to the extent that those changed were willing to die in order to share the knowledge of Jesus’ resurrection. Granted, others of various religious persuasions have died for beliefs thought to be true too. It is from these considerations, that I weigh the evidences in the balance, and admit that although I struggle with accepting Jesus’ resurrection, I’m able to embrace it given the totality of circumstances. As I mentioned earlier, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, or at least appear to do so, I find the type of evidence surrounding His resurrection extremely perplexing.