Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Archeological Evidence for Jesus Christ–by Lane Davis

May-2012

 The article—The Historical Evidence of the Gospel Accounts of Jesus Christ—begins by stating what the Bible does and does not tell us about the life of Jesus Christ. History itself will always be
an incomplete account of any period of time or that of any particular person,
but that fact that the Bible, and in particular, the Gospel accounts have been
found to be historically accurate and verifiable, meeting and exceeding all
historical criteria for verification, is a miracle in itself and shows once
again, that the Scripture was not written “by the will of man, but men spoke
from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21 ESV) According
to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, “Even
the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus
worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of
Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and
continued to have followers after his death.”[1] Archaeologist William Dever concurs,
“But of course the Bible is not, in the final analysis, about history at
all. It’s about His Story. But there is history there as well.”[2]

There are a number of archeological finds that are mentioned in the article—I will
list three:

        1. In 1961 at Caesarea Maritima, an Italian expedition discovered a 2 foot by 3 foot
stone with Pilate’s name on it, in the Roman theater. (Prior to 1961, some
skeptics challenged whether Pontius Pilate ever existed, in spite of his being
mentioned in the Book of Acts and 1 Timothy.)

        2. In 1968, a man that was crucified c. mid-first century A.D. was discovered by
Vassilois Tzaferis, in a suburb of Jerusalem called Giv’at ha-Mivtar—his
findings concluded: “The feet were joined almost parallel, both transfixed
by the same nail at the heels…the upper limbs were stretched out, each
stabbed by a nail in the forearm.” (In spite of the NT stating that Christ
was “nailed” to the cross  (John 20:25,
Acts 2:23, Col 2:14), many historians doubted the accuracy of these statements,
opting for the ‘tied to the cross’ rather than the biblical account of the
event.)

1. Luke (2:1-3) identifies the following as an historical event occurring at the time
   of the birth of Jesus: “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor
   of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register.” (NIV) The ESV translation states: “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.
   This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” which
   makes even clearer the fact that there was more than one registration. (Luke
   2:1-2 ESV) Many skeptics have doubted the veracity of this statement, given
   that the only census known by a Quirinius until recently was one dated by
   Josephus as A.D. 6. (Jesus couldn’t have been born later than 4 B.C., because
   that was the year that Herod the Great died). Recently, Jerry Vardaman has
   discovered the name of Quirinius on a coin in micrographic letters, placing him
   as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until the death of Herod.”
   (McRay, p. 154) Further evidence indicates that it is very possible that a
   census could have been ongoing in Israel at the time of Jesus’ birth – it was
   just a different census, and as Luke states, ‘was the first registration (census)…’ (and probably a different
   Quirinius) than mentioned by Josephus. Note also that Luke was aware of the
   later (6 A.D.) census, which he refers to in Acts 5:37 as “the”
   census, as opposed to “a” census in Luke 2:1-3).

 Although there are many archeological proofs to the historicity of Jesus Christ, I will
add just one more here which I see as being quite outstanding. Skeptics have
often pointed out that no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus
Christ has been discovered. (And they are correct, at least perhaps up until the present,
which again, is further proof that with time and each new discovery, the case
for the historicity and veracity of the Bible grows ever stronger.)   However,
empirically and logically speaking, is it reasonable to expect such artifacts
or inscriptions? After all, the man Jesus was not a prominent governmental
leader. He was essentially an itinerant preacher, with few possessions, and
eventually suffered the death of a common criminal. Would the Romans have
recorded His life or death with an inscription or statue? Certainly not. Actually,
Jewish archaeological evidence of the entire period is rather sparse. There are
the remains of large and extensive Roman cities, and adequate inscriptions of
leaders, including Herod, Pilate and Festus. There are also influential Jews
such as Caiaphas, but almost nothing can be found recording the lives of
ordinary individuals.

A recent incredible discovery may put to rest the criticism of the skeptics of the historicity of Jesus’ life. The Roman historian Josephus mentioned Christ several times while relating noteworthy civic events,
including the execution of one named “James, the brother of Jesus who was
called the Christ/Messiah” referring evidently to Jesus’ brother James,
leader of the early church and author of the New Testament book bearing his
name. The new artifact is an ossuary, a medium-sized box in which human bones
were placed for permanent burial after the flesh had all decayed away. This
practice was employed for only a brief period of time from about B.C. 20 to
A.D. 70. The box is made of a soft, chalky, limestone, common to the area. The
contents have long since vanished. Most remarkably, an inscription has been
etched into the side which reads, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” in the Aramaic script of the time.
Careful studies, including scrutiny under a scanning electron microscope show
the inscription to be genuine. The patina, or oxidized surface equally covers
both box and the interior of the etched letters. The recognized expert on such
matters, Dr. Andre Lemaire, concludes: “I am pleased to report that in my
judgment it is genuinely ancient and not a fake.”

All three names used were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased’s brother mentioned, unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in correct
Biblical relationship certainly supports the possibility of this being the
ossuary of the Biblical James.

With or without the ossuary or other archeological evidence, we can still be
confident that the events are true. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith,
well grounded in the facts of history, and the Bible is an entirely accurate
document. On its teachings we can base our lives and eternal destiny.[3]

 Historical Evidence

In regards to the historical evidence, this article has presented a well-rounded
and concise accounting of the evidence that more than makes the case for the
historical Jesus. In adding to the evidence/resource material presented in this
article, I will draw on the work of both Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig,
with supplementary material from other sources.

One of the emphasis’ of Habermas’ work is that of enemy/skeptic attestation of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the subsequent conversions of two people who were witnesses to the risen Jesus—these
two people being Paul, the avowed enemy of the followers of Christ, and James
the skeptic, the brother of Jesus. I find these particular examples to be quite
compelling and difficult for the opponent to refute as it moves outside of the
testimony of Jesus’ disciples and/or His ‘apologists’ if you will, and places
the burden of proof on the opponent to explain how a skeptic and an avowed
enemy could experience such a change in views unless it was through an
evidential experience.

Certainly a fable or nice story would not have convinced Paul that Jesus had risen from
the dead. Indeed, in light of his hostile attitude and actions toward
Christians, as well as his own Jewish studies, he most likely would have
perceived the gospel to be a poor Christian attempt to imitate Jewish fables
that later came to be known as Midrash. As an educated man, Paul would most
assuredly been familiar with non-historical genre. It would not have lured him
to follow the man he considered to be a false messiah who was cursed by God. He
would have feared such apostasy from true faith, for it would jeopardize his
soul.

It is important to note that Paul came to Christ through an experience in which he
thought [and believed] he encountered the risen Jesus, an account that dates
very early. We need reasons for his conversion from unbelief, since his
conversion was based on a personal appearance of Jesus and counts very heavily
against embellishment…the same applies to James. All things considered, an
empty tomb by itself would not have convinced Paul or the skeptic James, both
of whom appear to have been convinced by an appearance of the risen Jesus to them…it
was the appearances that led to the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from
the dead, not that of the empty tomb, with the exception of John. (John

Another criticism offered by skeptics is that all we have are the testimonies of
Christians, who most likely transferred their personal biases and traditions
into their writings. Therefore, these writings must be considered biased. Thus,
we must suspect that they do not accurately report what really occurred. This
objection is plagued with several difficulties.

First, Paul’s testimony is stronger than that of a neutral witness of the risen Jesus,
since his bias ran in the opposite direction. He was certainly not sympathetic
to the Christian cause. Rather he viewed Jesus as a false Christ and severely
persecuted his followers. The skeptic may reply, “Yes, but after he became a
Christian, he lost his standing as an unbiased source.”

Granted, that Paul lost his status as a hostile source after he became a Christian. However, he maintained hostility toward Christianity right up to the time he believed. So we still have an
appearance of the risen Jesus as the reason for the belief of a hostile source.
With one who persists in asserting that Christians still lack the testimony of
someone who saw Jesus risen and did not convert, we might ask, “If someone
actually witnessed the risen Jesus and was not changed by the experience,
wouldn’t this indicate that the person was too biased against Jesus to act on
the facts? Biases go both ways.” We would question the testimony of a person
who really saw the raised Jesus and still rejected him.

Secondly, the biases of James the brother of Jesus also ran contrary to Christianity. The
Gospels report that he was an unbeliever during the life of Jesus. Later we
find reports of the risen Jesus appearing to James (1 Cor. 15:7a) and of his
death for his belief that Jesus was the risen Messiah. So with testimonies in
our hands from the disciples Paul and James, we have examples of friends and
foes who believed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them.

Third, recognizing the bias of an author does not automatically merit the conclusion
that he or she has distorted the facts.

Fourth, if we reject the testimony of all interested parties, we will have to reject
most of our standard historical sources. The authors of such works often would
not be writing unless they had a personal interest. It is the role of the
historian to comb through the literature and attempt to see pas the writer’s
persona biases to ascertain what really happened.

Fifth, the skeptic must be careful not to commit the genetic fallacy. We must recognize
the difference between understanding why something is true versus understanding
why something is believed or how one came to believe that it is true.

N. T. Wright comments, “”It must be asserted most strongly that to discover that a
particular writer has a ‘bias’ tells us nothing whatever about the value of the
information he or she presents. It merely bids us be aware of the bias (and of
our own, for that matter), and to assess the material according to as many
sources as we can.”[4]

This logical reasoning applies to the resurrection of Jesus. X is the proposition
that the disciples of Jesus sincerely believed that he rose from the dead and
appeared to them. Let’s say that there are only fine initially plausible
explanations that account for these claims on the part of the disciples:

 Explanation
1: Jesus rose from the dead.

Explanation
2: Fraud was involved on the part of the disciples.

Explanation
3: The disciples sincerely believe they saw the risen Jesus, but were
hallucinating or delusional.

Explanation
4: Jesus never really died, so when he appeared to his disciples they thought
he had risen from the dead, when he had really only revived from a coma.

Explanation
5: The entire story was a legend that developed over time.

 Now consider the additional factors of the empty tomb and the conversions of the
church persecutor Paul and the skeptic James because they both believed that
the raised Jesus had appeared to them. These provide evidence that explanation
1 is true. One might speculate that explanation 2 (that the disciples stole the
body and were lying about the appearances) may also account for the empty tomb.
But it does not adequately account for the disciple’ transformed lives and
willingness to die, nor does it adequately explain the appearances of the risen
Jesus to the skeptics Paul and James.[5]

In regards to enemy attestation—even though such attestation may be considered
‘indirect’—the empty tomb is attested not only by Christian sources, but
admitted too by Jesus’ enemies as well. This is not an argument from silence,
but rather than point to an occupied tomb, early critics accused Jesus’
disciples of stealing the body. (Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30).  The earliest Jewish claim reported regarding
Jesus’ resurrection was to accuse the disciples of stealing the body, and
indirect admission that the body was unavailable for public display. This is
the only early opposing theory we know of that was offered by Jesus’ enemies.

This enemy ‘attestation’ to the empty tomb, among other historical aspects of Jesus’ life,
is also found in later medieval Jewish writings. One example is that of the Toledot
Yeshu (1000AD), a medieval Jewish retelling of the life of Jesus. The following
is a portion of the text which is extremely anti-Christian. There are many
versions of these ‘retellings’, and as part of the transmitted oral and written
tradition of the Jews, we can presume their original place in antiquity, dating
back to the time of Jesus’ first appearance as an influential leader who was
drawing Jews away from their faith in the Law. The Toledot Yeshu contains a
determined effort to explain away the miracles of Jesus, and to deny the virgin
birth, Jesus’ resurrection, etc. In some places, the text is quite vicious, but
it does confirm many elements of the New Testament writings. Let’s take a look
at a portion of the text (Jesus is refered to as ‘Yehoshua’):

“In the year 3671 (in Jewish reckonging, it being ca 90 B.C.) in the days
of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain
disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived
at Bethlehem, in Judah. Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste
daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of
David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing. At the close of a certain
Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having
gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her
by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was
amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will.
Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior
so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime
of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam… Miriam gave
birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later
deteriorated to Yeshu (“Yeshu” is the Jewish “name” for
Jesus. It means “May His Name Be Blotted Out”). On the eighth day he
was circumcised. When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the
house of study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition. One day Yeshu walked
in front of the Sages with his head uncovered, showing shameful disrespect. At
this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not truly indicate
that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a niddah. Moreover, the
story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin, he gave
his own impudent interpretation of the law and in an ensuing debate he held
that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he had to receive
counsel from Jethro. This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of
Yeshu, and it was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the
illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Miriam admitted it. After this became
known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee. After King
Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel…He gathered about himself three
hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his
birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu
proclaimed, “I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and
said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel.'” He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, “David my
ancestor prophesied concerning me: ‘The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this
day have I begotten thee.'” The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu
was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought
to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters
of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him
as the Messiah, Son of the Highest. When word of these happenings came to
Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu…They
replied: “It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him, for it is
in Scripture: ‘And that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name,
which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of
other gods, even that prophet shall die.’ He has not fulfilled the signs and
conditions of the Messiah.” Yeshu spoke up: “Madam, I am the Messiah
and I revive the dead.” A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the
letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly
moved and said: “This is a true sign.” She reprimanded the Sages and
sent them humiliated from her presence. Yeshu’s dissident followers increased
and there was controversy in Israel. Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages
came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading
everyone astray. Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him. The found
him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God. When they tried to
take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to the men of Upper Galilee:
“Wage no battle.” He would prove himself by the power which came to
him from his Father in heaven. He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of
clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone
that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat.
When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the emissaries
departed and reported these wonders to the Queen…Yeshu was seized. His head was
covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could
do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name. Yeshu was taken prisoner
to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his
thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns.
There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained
followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to
the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover. Yeshu
then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That
year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu,
accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed
down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten
followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be
found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments
not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So
it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by
several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a
verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages. Yeshu was put to death on
the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried
to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had
pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to
pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for it was a plant more than a
tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is
written in Scripture, “His body shall not remain all night upon the
tree.” They buried him outside the city. On the first day of the week his
bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was
truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven
as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave
where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had
brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters
flowed into the garden. Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty,
that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was
a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in
the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related
what he had done, in order that Yeshu’s followers should not steal the body and
then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied
it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words,
“This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven.” Realizing
that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she
mocked the followers but praised the Sages.

 In spite of the fact that the ancient Jews who wrote this did their best to argue for another
interpretation of the Life of Jesus, they did make several claims here about
Jesus. This passage, along with several others from the Toledot tradition,
confirms that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, healed the lame, said that
Isaiah foretold of his life, was worshipped as God, arrested by the Jews,
beaten with rods, given vinegar to drink, wore a crown of thorns, rode into
Jerusalem on a donkey, was betrayed by a man named Judah Iskarioto, and had
followers who claimed he was resurrected and ascended, leaving an empty tomb.
If Jesus’ enemies attested to the same events of that of the Gospel, even
though via that of attempted refutation, the case is made as to the events that
took place in the life of the historical Jesus—the Christ which is found and
attested too in the canonical Gospels.[6]

Historical Evidence and Reliability of the Gospel Accounts

 St. Augustine said, “If you believe what you like in the gospels,
and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”
Although there has been much debate within the scholarly community as to the
historical reliability of the canonical Gospels—i.e. which are the real words
of Jesus, which are not, the Gospels simply being a enhanced Christian
tradition, etc., not to mention the outright opposition by those who would
discredit their veracity, the Gospels are being seen more and more as viable
and accurate historical documents of first person, eye witness accounts of the
life of Jesus and God’s redemptive power being manifest through His Son.

While scholars maintain different attitudes toward the canonical Gospels, more are
recognizing their historical worth. Indeed, when it comes to the historical
Jesus and early Christianity, many and perhaps most scholars assert that the
canonical Gospels are our best sources, despite their hesitations.[7]

            William Lane Craig offers the following criteria as to the historicity of the Gospels, making the case that one must assume that the Gospels are reliable until proven wrong—the burden of
proof being on the shoulders of those who oppose the veracity of the accounts:

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts.
The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the
gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually
happened to be erased.

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary “urban legends.” Tales like those
of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the
“vanishing hitchhiker” rarely concern actual historical individuals
and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture
like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large
tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From
the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue
were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have
exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence
of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and
heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the
supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on
tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by
those who had known Jesus.

5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.[8]

Articles:

Writings from Dr. William Lane Craig on the Historical Jesus and the Resurrection—here

EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS–by Shandon L.Guthrie–here

Audio/Visual:

Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead–N. T. Wright–Youtube–here

Web sites:

History, Philosophy and Christian Apologetics–Specializing in Resurrection-of-Jesus Research—The Site of Dr. Gary Habermas–here

Books:

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus–Gary R. Habermas/Michael R. Licona–here

Broad in its scope, thorough and detailed in its depth,…[this book] may be the most thorough defense of the historicity of the resurrection. J. P. Moreland

The Resurrection of the Son of God–N. T. Wright–here

No one could read this without learning something fresh about almost every verse of the Synoptics, and being provoked into new wrestling with the text…an Evangelical energy that will make it a book for prayerful meditations as well as intellectual stimulus.–Rowan Willams

The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach–Michael R. Licona–here

…This is simply required reading for anyone who wants to master this subject.–Gary Habermas