Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Apologes]

I recently finished Michael Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach which argues that there are 3 minimal facts that are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars which form the so called historical bedrock regarding the fate of Jesus. These are as follows:

1. Jesus was killed by crucifixion under Pilate
2. Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups
3. The early Church persecutor Paul also had an experience which he interpreted as Jesus appearing to him and this experience convinced him to convert to Christianity

Licona argues in detail against the naturalistic hypotheses that attempt to account for the bedrock and concludes that the best explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He does so by ranking each hypothesis based on how well they satisfy the following criteria:

- Explanatory scope - does the hypothesis account for all the data
- Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data
- Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known
- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions
- Illumination (a bonus criteria) - does the hypothesis shed light on other areas of inquiry

Has anyone interacted with this argument or others similar to it such as those of N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas? If so, what are your objections to it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I recently finished Michael Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach which argues that there are 3 minimal facts that are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars which form the so called historical bedrock regarding the fate of Jesus. These are as follows:

1. Jesus was killed by crucifixion under Pilate
2. Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups
3. The early Church persecutor Paul also had an experience which he interpreted as Jesus appearing to him and this experience convinced him to convert to Christianity

Licona argues in detail against the naturalistic hypotheses that attempt to account for the bedrock and concludes that the best explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He does so by ranking each hypothesis based on how well they satisfy the following criteria:

- Explanatory scope - does the hypothesis account for all the data
- Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data
- Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known
- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions
- Illumination (a bonus criteria) - does the hypothesis shed light on other areas of inquiry

Has anyone interacted with this argument or others similar to it such as those of N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas? If so, what are your objections to it?

Yes, he used "Plausibility". Unfortunately for him resurrection has such a low plausibility that almost any other explanation is superior. He sinks his own argument. As to all of the disciples seeing Jesus we do not really know that at all. The Gospels are far from a reliable source and they are not even consistent on that , perhaps the most important part of the story. Also Paul only had visions. Which supports a much ore likely explanation. Peter and perhaps one or even two others had post crucifixion hallucinations. Those are far more common than many people realize. Pau's visions would all also fall under the realm of hallucinations. His "minimal facts" argument fails because he ignores some very basic facts.

 

[rocala]

I have never understood the relevance of point 3 to such discussions. Surely seeing a ghost or having a vision has no connection to a physical resurrection however real it may seem.

 

[lukethethird]

that are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars

No doubt.

 

[Apologes]

Yes, he used "Plausibility". Unfortunately for him resurrection has such a low plausibility that almost any other explanation is superior. He sinks his own argument. As to all of the disciples seeing Jesus we do not really know that at all. The Gospels are far from a reliable source and they are not even consistent on that , perhaps the most important part of the story. Also Paul only had visions. Which supports a much ore likely explanation. Peter and perhaps one or even two others had post crucifixion hallucinations. Those are far more common than many people realize. Pau's visions would all also fall under the realm of hallucinations. His "minimal facts" argument fails because he ignores some very basic facts.

Why do you think any other explanation would be superior to the resurrection? What gives it such low plausibility?

As for the appearances, our best source afaik is Paul himself with the Gospels corroborating him but we can ignore them if you wish. Paul in his letter to the Corinthian Church quotes what the vast majority believe to be a very early tradition and this tradition mentions the appearances:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

There is a virtually unanimous consensus among scholars that this is a very early tradition and that's one of the reasons why it's taken as a historical fact that the disciples had experiences which they interpreted in such a way.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1. Jesus was killed by crucifixion under Pilate
2. Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups
3. The early Church persecutor Paul also had an experience which he interpreted as Jesus appearing to him and this experience convinced him to convert to Christianity

• That is an unverified claim of apologists.
• According to whom? Supported by what evidence.
• Which, if true, could have been anything from an epileptic seizure to heat stroke.

The OP claim is nonsense.

 

[Apologes]

• That is an unverified claim of apologists.
• According to whom? Supported by what evidence.
• Which, if true, could have been anything from an epileptic seizure to heat stroke.

The OP claim is nonsense.

Which claim do you think is unverified and which claim are you referring when you ask according to whom?

It's possible the experiences were what you say but then again it's also possible they weren't. What we're looking for is the best explanation, not just a possible one.

 

[Left Coast]

Why do you think any other explanation would be superior to the resurrection? What gives it such low plausibility?

Because people don't come back alive after being dead for days, as a rule. It's a one way trip. Any claim of some miracle explanation that violates everything we know about how the world works is going to have automatically very low plausibility.

 

[Apologes]

that are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars

No doubt.

I am not sure if you're expressing doubt regarding the existence of a consensus or if you're incredulous regarding the New Testament scholars in general?

 

[Apologes]

Because people don't come back alive after being dead for days, as a rule. It's a one way trip. Any claim of some miracle explanation for a phenomenon that violates everything we know about how the world works is going to have automatically very low plausibility.

We know that people don't rise from the dead on their own, true, but here we are talking about God raising someone from the dead. This isn't going against how the world works as its not the laws of nature that are raising the dead but an act of God. On what basis would you assign a low plausibility to God choosing to raise Jesus from the dead a priori?

 

[Left Coast]

We know that people don't rise from the dead on their own, true, but here we are talking about God raising someone from the dead.

How often does she do that?

This isn't going against how the world works

It literally is.

as its not the laws of nature that are raising the dead but an act of God. On what basis would you assign a low plausibility to God choosing to raise Jesus from the dead a priori?

Invoking God doesn't help any more than it would in any other case of a miracle you don't believe. Would you believe me if I said I grew wings and flew yesterday? No? What if I said God did it?

The plausibility doesn't change because you invoke an unfalsifiable cause. It's based on the probability of the event actually happening, which is based on how often it's observed in reality and how we observe that things actually operate, not hypothetically.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's possible the experiences were what you say but then again it's also possible they weren't.

Of course. They might have been a deceitful fabrication. They might have been some other manifestation of delusion - a bad seafood dinner, a guilt induced nightmare.

The bottom line is this:

I couldn't care less what you think is possible. Explain to me what you think is most plausible, and why you would think such nonsense rises to the level of "Historical Case."​

 

[Apologes]

Of course. They might have been a deceitful fabrication. They might have been some other manifestation of delusion - a bad seafood dinner, a guilt induced nightmare.

The bottom line is this:

I couldn't care less what you think is possible. Explain to me what you think is most plausible, and why you would thick such nonsense rises to the level of "Historical Case."​

You seem to be misunderstanding something. I am not saying Licona is right. I read his book and am unsure if his explanation is the most plausible one. Hence why I asked for objections to it.

As for why he thinks that, in case you haven't read the book or listened to any of his talks/debates, as I outlined in my OP he thinks it's the best explanation because it satisfied all the criteria listed better than the alternatives. It takes into consideration all of the data, explains it without straining it, doesn't go against known facts and isn't adding any assumptions to explain away the data.

 

[Apologes]

How often does she do that?



It literally is.



Invoking God doesn't help any more than it would in any other case of a miracle you don't believe. Would you believe me if I said I grew wings and flew yesterday? No? What if I said God did it?

The plausibility doesn't change because you invoke an unfalsifiable cause. It's based on the probability of the event actually happening, which is based on how often it's observed in reality and how we observe that things actually operate, not hypothetically.

The resurrections? I wouldn't know but for the sake of the argument let's assume Jesus is the only case where God raised someone from the dead.

I would like you to elaborate why you think this goes against the way we know the world works. Afaik we don't know that if God wishes he doesn't or can't raise a dead person, we just know that the natural course is that dead people stay dead.

Having said that I would like to know how you could calculate the probability of God raising someone from the dead if He wishes to do so.

 

[danieldemol]

The resurrections? I wouldn't know but for the sake of the argument let's assume Jesus is the only case where God raised someone from the dead.

I would like you to elaborate why you think this goes against the way we know the world works. Afaik we don't know that if God wishes he doesn't or can't raise a dead person, we just know that the natural course is that dead people stay dead.

Having said that I would like to know how you could calculate the probability of God raising someone from the dead if He wishes to do so.

Your not calculating the probability that God can do what God wishes *if* God so wishes it.

Your OP appeared to claim to be calculating the probability that God actually did wish it - that is what taking a historical approach is.

So far I believe you have just followed Licona in assuming a God exists and wanting it so badly to be true that God wished for a resurrection that you are ignoring how uncommon such an event is in the realm of our experience.

Also if Jesus was the only resurrection that would prove the gospels false as the gospels claim numerous resurrections in my view.

 

[Left Coast]

The resurrections? I wouldn't know

Sure you would. Look around at everyone you know who has died. How many of them did God bring back to life?

but for the sake of the argument let's assume Jesus is the only case where God raised someone from the dead.

I would like you to elaborate why you think this goes against the way we know the world works.

Because, again, we can look around and observe that over and over and over again, dead people don't come back to life.

Afaik we don't know that if God wishes he doesn't or can't raise a dead person, we just know that the natural course is that dead people stay dead.

"The natural course," ie how things actually demonstrably are. Precisely.

Having said that I would like to know how you could calculate the probability of God raising someone from the dead if He wishes to do so.

The probability we can calculate is that of God actually raising people from the dead. That's how you evaluate plausibility in any other situation in your life.

If you walked into a room and saw a drinking glass sitting on a table and I asked you how you thought it got there, what would you say is a plausible answer? If I told you that I cast a magical spell and made the glass appear from no where, would you say that's a plausible explanation or an implausible one?

My bet is that you'd say that's not plausible. So, why? If magic exists, it could certainly cause a glass to appear, couldn't it?

The reason is because, even if magic did exist, the reality is that we don't observe magic being the actual explanation for how things happen...well, basically ever. We know glasses don't end up on tables by magic, even if hypothetically they could. So we regard that as an implausible explanation.

So if Jesus is the only person God has ever raised from the dead, we'd assess the probability of that by looking at how many people have been raised from the dead (one) and divide that by how many people haven't (trillions).

That leads us to the conclusion that resurrection is a highly, wildly unlikely explanation of the known facts.

 

[Apologes]

Your not calculating the probability that God can do what God wishes *if* God so wishes it.

Your OP appeared to claim to be calculating the probability that God actually did wish it - that is what taking a historical approach is.

So far I believe you have just followed Licona in assuming a God exists and wanting it so badly to be true that God wished for a resurrection that you are ignoring how uncommon such an event is in the realm of our experience.

Also if Jesus was the only resurrection that would prove the gospels false as the gospels claim numerous resurrections in my view.

Well, either way on what grounds can you say that it's unlikely that God wished to raise Jesus from the dead? It's true that God doesn't wish to raise most people but then again the case of Jesus doesn't fall in line with most people as the context of his life is religiously charged and his death offered a chance for divine vindication. In such a situation, it becomes far morely likely that God would wish to raise Jesus if his claims were true.

Licona actually brackets the question of God's existence to the scholar's "horizon" and doesn't just dismiss either naturalism or supernaturalism. Licona actually argues for the existence of God based on the resurrection argument being correct.

That Jesus was the only one raised was granted for the sake of the argument. Keep in mind also that we're dealing here with an argument that restricts itself to the very minimum of facts known as the historical bedrock. It doesn't presume the innerancy of the gospels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you think any other explanation would be superior to the resurrection? What gives it such low plausibility?

As for the appearances, our best source afaik is Paul himself with the Gospels corroborating him but we can ignore them if you wish. Paul in his letter to the Corinthian Church quotes what the vast majority believe to be a very early tradition and this tradition mentions the appearances:


There is a virtually unanimous consensus among scholars that this is a very early tradition and that's one of the reasons why it's taken as a historical fact that the disciples had experiences which they interpreted in such a way.

I told you. Post death hallucinations are far more plausible. They are frequent enough so that peer reviewed studies have been done on them:

The phenomenology and impact of hallucinations concerning the deceased - PMC

People who have suffered the loss of a loved one may subsequently report sensory experiences of the deceased (termed ‘after-death communications’, or ADCs). Such encounters are common and can be a source of comfort to the bereaved. Nevertheless, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

" These often occurred over many years, and at the time of the interviews 106 people (36.1% of the sample) were still having them. The form of encounter varied, most commonly taking the form of a ‘sense of presence’ of the deceased (reported in 39.2% of cases), but also including visual (14.0%), auditory (13.3%) and tactile (2.7%) experiences. A majority of those reporting encounters with their deceased spouse regarded them as helpful in their recovery from loss, and Rees concluded that these hallucinations were normal and beneficial accompaniments of widowhood."

How many cases of resurrection do you know of? Especially after a very efficient state execution. They badly lose the "plausibility" argument. Post death hallucinations are not rare.

As to what people believed some time after Jesus's death, so what? You are probably too young to remember the death of Elvis. You may not have not even been born when that happened. After he died there were countless Elvis sightings. People saw him talked to him and touched him. Often he was seen working in the kitchens of fast food joints. A whole series of jokes arose because of that.

I am not denying that Jesus existed, but his resurrection looks to be pure legend.

 

[Apologes]

Sure you would. Look around at everyone you know who has died. How many of them did God bring back to life?



Because, again, we can look around and observe that over and over and over again, dead people don't come back to life.



"The natural course," ie how things actually demonstrably are. Precisely.



The probability we can calculate is that of God actually raising people from the dead. That's how you evaluate plausibility in another other situation in your life.

If you walked into a room and saw a drinking glass sitting on a table and I asked you how you thought it got there, what would you say is a plausible answer? If I told you that I cast a magical spell and made the glass appear from no where, would you say that's a plausible explanation or an implausible one?

My bet is that you'd say that's not plausible. So, why? If magic exists, it could certainly cause a glass to appear, couldn't it?

The reason is because, even if magic did exist, the reality is that we don't observe magic being the actual explanation for how things happen...well, basically ever. We know glasses don't end up on tables by magic, even if hypothetically they could. So we regard that as an implausible explanation.

So if Jesus is the only person God has ever raised from the dead, we'd assess the probability of that by looking at how many people have been raised from the dead (one) and divide that by how many people haven't (trillions).

That leads us to the conclusion that resurrection is a highly, wildly unlikely explanation of the known facts.

Since you and danieldmol are using the same objections I'll refer you to the first paragraph in my response to his previous post.

I wonder if you two have any other qualms with Licona's case or is this the sole percieved flaw in it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, either way on what grounds can you say that it's unlikely that God wished to raise Jesus from the dead? It's true that God doesn't wish to raise most people but then again the case of Jesus doesn't fall in line with most people as the context of his life is religiously charged and his death offered a chance for divine vindication. In such a situation, it becomes far morely likely that God would wish to raise Jesus if his claims were true.

Licona actually brackets the question of God's existence to the scholar's "horizon" and doesn't just dismiss either naturalism or supernaturalism. Licona actually argues for the existence of God based on the resurrection argument being correct.

That Jesus was the only one raised was granted for the sake of the argument. Keep in mind also that we're dealing here with an argument that restricts itself to the very minimum of facts known as the historical bedrock. It doesn't presume the innerancy of the gospels.

No, you do not get to assume that only Jesus was resurrected. Your argument had the "plausibility" clause. It is simply not plausible. To claim plausible you need other examples.