Most current philosophers start from the principle that miracles simply don’t happen, and that makes the claim of the resurrection impossible. However, by doubting the resurrection you end up with a huge problem on your hands when trying to explain the events that happened in the first century.
Since this subject is very long, I’m going to break it up into several mini-posts. The goal is that you can read them in less than 5 minutes. By themselves they don’t withstand much criticism, but when added together they build a very strong case in favor of the resurrection as historical fact.
The resurrection places the burden of proof in the hands of unbelievers. It’s not enough to simply not believe in the resurrection. You need to have an alternative explanation that is historically viable. An alternative explanation for historically proven events: the empty tomb, the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus, and the birth of Christianity.
Usually, if we put together the most common arguments to refute the idea of the resurrection, we’ll arrive at something like the following statement:
“People back then didn’t have our scientific knowledge about the world. They were easy prey for accounts that someone rose from the dead, because they believed that events like the resurrection were entirely possible. For their part, Jesus’ followers, inconsolable at having lost the one they believed would be the great liberator of their people, began to feel that he was still with them, guiding them, living in their hearts. As the years passed, to explain these feelings, new stories were developed and became what today we have in the gospels.”
The previous paragraph may seem perfectly plausible to anyone today, but only because we are ignorant about the historical and cultural context of that time. In order to keep this post short, I’m going to make claims that need more development, and over the coming days and weeks, I’ll make separate posts for each of these claims. Let’s start with the idea that young Jews, between 20 and 30 years old, would have reasons to invent the resurrection.
In the first century there were several other messianic movements in which the possible messiahs were executed[1]; however, in none of these cases do we hear the slightest mention of the followers going around claiming that their leader rose from the dead. They knew very well that a resurrection would be impossible to keep private. Whenever a leader of one of these movements was executed, his followers had two options: abandon the movement or find a new leader. Going around saying that their leader had risen from the dead simply wasn’t an option.
Dozens of young Jewish leaders had their lives ended the same way as Jesus. Why did Jesus’ disciples come to the conclusion that the crucifixion was not a defeat but a triumph, except for the fact that they actually saw him resurrected?
The first Christians certainly experienced something so compelling that they were willing to follow Jesus’ teachings no matter the cost. And according to them, what they experienced was a real encounter with the resurrected Jesus.
You can disagree with them, and try to explain it some other way, but as the Japanese novelist Shūsaku Endō, writer of the book Silence (nominated for the Oscar for best film), says: “if we don’t believe in the resurrection, we run the risk of, in trying to explain what happened to the first Christians, inventing alternatives that are even more unbelievable.”
[1] Among others, worth mentioning are Simon bar Kokhba, Judas Maccabeus, and Simon Bar-Giora.