Authenticating the Resurrection of Jesus: The Empty Tomb

Empty TombIn the last post, we noted powerful evidence for the empty tomb: enemy attestation. The religious authorities of Jerusalem and the early Church both agree: On Easter Sunday, the body of Jesus is not in the tomb. The question is: Why? Christians, of course, affirm the reason is the bodily Resurrection of the Lord. The authorities concocted a different tale: they said the disciples stole the body. Did they? Not a chance.

First, the tomb was guarded, most likely by Roman soldiers. Matthew’s Gospel mentions that the religious authorities bribed the guards to say that while they slept, the disciples pilfered Jesus from the tomb. That Roman soldiers would fall asleep on the job, and somehow not be woken by the commotion of men rolling away the massive stone at the mouth of the tomb, is laughable enough. But even if that were possible, who knows what’s happening while one is asleep, anyway? But there’s an even more convincing reason this argument doesn’t work.

Almost anyone would grant that people are often willing to die for what they believe to be true. Suicide bombers come immediately to mind. But no one dies for something they know to be a lie. And the disciples would certainly know if Jesus had actually risen from the dead and appeared to them, or if they had, in fact, hidden his corpse in a trunk somewhere. But if they had really stolen the body, why would they go and get themselves killed by preaching that Jesus had been resurrected? I mean, it’s not as if they had anything to gain, humanly speaking, by their message. It’s not as if sprawling mansions along the Mediterranean coastline awaited. They could only look forward to beatings. imprisonments, and an almost certain death. The truth is that they proclaimed the Resurrection because they were convinced by the encounters they had with the risen Christ. They proclaimed it because it was true.

/2 Comments/by

Authenticating the Resurrection of Jesus: the Jerusalem factor

The ResurrectionThe Bible is refreshingly clear about what is at stake if the Resurrection of Jesus didn’t happen: “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith…but Christ has indeed been raised from the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:14, 20). Today, Easter Sunday, is the first day of the Octave of Easter (in the Church, it is as if Easter lasts as one continuous day until next Sunday), with the rest of the liturgical season of Easter to follow. So, over the next while, I’ll offer some solid reasons why we can be certain that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Keep in mind that these facts are accepted by the vast majority of critical scholars, be they believers or not.

Reason 1: The Jerusalem factor. When the Apostles began publicly preaching that Jesus had been physically resurrected from the dead, it is not as if they began by travelling to some faraway land, to tell people who had no means of investigating the veracity of the event. It wasn’t like “Star Wars” – “Let me tell you about something that happenned ‘a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.'” No, the Apostles began proclaiming the Resurrection in Jerusalem – the very city where Christ had been publicly killed. There is simply no way they could have done so if it were not true.

It’s instructive to note the response of the religious authorities of Jerusalem to this message: they didn’t say, “Jesus isn’t risen! He’s still in his tomb – and let us show you hs remains and put an end to this foolishness once and for all”. Their response was actually to say, “The disciples stole the body”. In other words, the enemies of the Gospel message admit the reality of the empty tomb. This response is noted in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 28 (vv. 11-15), where it is said that “this story (of the stolen body) is told among the Jews to this day” (v. 15). Saint Justin Martyr, in his “Dialogue with Trypho”, notes that this response was still commonly heard among Jews in the mid-2nd century when he was writing.

In the next post, we’ll examine more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead in his physical body, leaving an empty tomb behind.

/4 Comments/by

Authenticating the Death and Burial of Jesus

St Joseph of Arimathea buries JesusEven as we prepare to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday, this Holy Saturday is a good time to examine the reality of Jesus’ death and burial. It has become necessary to do this because both events have been denied by skeptics over the years. It is also important because, in order for Christianity to be true, Jesus must have died, for without his death there could not have been a Resurrection. He also must have been buried, because  scripture and the Church have constantly asserted this fact as part of the kerygma.

1. The death of Jesus. Scholar Gary Habermas states that “the death of Jesus is the most recorded event in ancient, non-Christian history” (The Historical Jesus, p. 281). In an earlier post, we looked at Habermas’ use of the Roman historian Tacitus to this effect. Here is another quote from another, non-Christian source, referring to the death of Jesus (there are numerous Christian references to this as well, but I find secular sources are often more convincing to secular people). This one is from the Jewish Talmud, which was compiled between AD 70-200:

“On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”

– Quoted in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, p. 203

2. The burial of Jesus. Affirming this fact is necessary due to theories like that of former Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan, who famously claimed that Jesus’ dead body was likely thrown into a shallow common grave, where it was eaten by dogs. While not denying that at times in late antiquity, the Romans would leave bodies on crosses to be mauled by animals and birds of carrion (as a public deterrent to revolt), there is no chance this happened to Jesus, because it was peacetime. For Pilate to have left Jesus’ body hanging on the cross overnight during Passover would have been a fatal mistake, all but guaranteeing a riot by the myriad Jews gathered in Jerusalem for the feast. The Romans never would have risked offending Jewish sensibilities here, which they respected during times of calm. Leaving Jesus’ body on the cross would have defiled the land (see Deut. 21:22-23), making it impossible for Jews to celebrate the feast in an acceptable manner. No, Jesus did receive a proper burial with the help of Joseph of Arimathea, an undoubtedly historical reference (no early Christian would have invented a story of Jesus receiving a proper burial, not from his followers, but from a member of the very council that condemned him).

/4 Comments/by

Good Friday and the “Good Thief”

Dismas, the "Good Thief"Luke’s Gospel tells us about the two criminals who were crucified on either side of Jesus:

“Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed. When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left. Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.’ And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, ‘He saved others; let him save himself if he is God’s Messiah, the Chosen One.’ The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar and said, ‘If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.’ There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: ‘Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!’ But the other criminal rebuked him. ‘Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.’ Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ Jesus answered him, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise'” (Luke 23:32-43).

John’s Gospel mentions that the titulus, or title that was hung on Jesus’ cross to explain his “crime”  – “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” – was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek (John 19:20). This was a sort of summary of the official charges that would be sent to Rome, but it also affirmed, unintentionally, the universal reign of Christ the King. Being written in all three languages would have enabled all those pilgrims from around the world, who were in Jerusalem for the Passover, to read it. And the opposing reactions of the two criminals on either side of Christ, when you boil it down to essentials, represent the only two reactions people have had toward Christ over the centuries: acceptance or rejection.

What is particularly amazing about the reaction of the “Good Thief”, as he has come to be known, is that he was converted not by witnessing Jesus’ miracles, or listening to his sublime, otherworldly teaching. The only sermon he heard was one that spoke far louder than words alone – the Passion of the Christ, the suffering endured by our Lord. He was converted by witnessing the example of Jesus – forgiving his enemies, the way he carried his cross with determination, not despair – everything Jesus said and did as he ascended to his throne, the Holy Cross. This man was given the grace to see what so many others that day could not – the true identity of Christ. And what Jesus had predicted had come true in the life of this man: “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14, 15).

On this Good Friday, let us pray that many others will be converted by contemplating the suffering and death of Jesus Christ.

/1 Comment/by

Archbishop Terrence Prendergast on The New Mass

Archbishop-Terrence-PrendergastWhen we set about creating The New Mass iPhone app, the very first person I called was Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa. He and I had met when we were presenters at a couple of conferences. He was also the only Canadian on the translating committee for the new English version of the Mass. Recently, he was interviewed by the National Post’s Charles Lewis on the importance of the new Roman Missal:

Q. Is it more sacred language?

A. There are different types of speech: for the pub, at work, on a television talk shows; and another more suitable for worship.  The early translation was more pedestrian, let us say; this one has a higher literary register, though still familiar, as is fitting for sons and daughters of God.

Q. Proponents of the new missal say if nothing else the new language will force people in the pews to think more about what they’re saying and think about what it means. Do you agree?

A. Yes, especially at first when the translation will be strikingly novel. I believe the people in the pews will adapt to the translation fairly quickly; however, the priests will need a bit more time and the laity will need to be patient with them.

When it comes to certain terms — for example, speaking of the death of Jesus “for many” rather than [the current] “for all” — it will be an apt opportunity for teaching and clarifying Church doctrine. Similarly with the statement in the Creed that says Jesus is “consubstantial” with the Father rather than “one in being.” People will wonder and puzzle over texts and this will give priests and deacons an opportunity to teach the nuances of the faith.

For the full interview, go here.

/7 Comments/by

Re: Vatican’s new Mass ‘elitist,’ priests say

Today’s National Post ran a front-page story about the upcoming new English translation of the Mass: “Vatican’s new Mass ‘elitist’, priests say”. These priests are based in Ireland, and my own Irish eyes weren’t exactly smiling when I read their views. They are, in a word, wrong – on so many levels.

Judging from the reaction we’ve received to The New Mass iPhone app, and to the talks I’ve given on the new translation in thefaithexplained.com seminar series, these guys are seriously mistaken. In my experience, once people have actually seen the new text, and have had the reasons for the changes explained to them, they are generally thrilled. Not only is the new translation more faithful to the official Latin text, but it does a superb job of highlighting the biblical allusions in the Mass.

The complaints of these priests are also unseemly for other reasons. They are, quite simply, poisoning the well for their own parishioners. In all likelihood, most of these people haven’t viewed the new Mass translation for themselves, but when they read an article in the media – quoting their own priests – bashing it to pieces, they can’t help but be negatively prejudiced against it. In my view, these priests are merely seeking to grab some ill-gotten attention for themselves, when they should be supporting the decisions of the hierarchy whom they (allegedly) serve. If they have legitimate concerns, fine. But let those be aired privately in meetings with the bishops, not in the secular media or the court of public opinion.

/3 Comments/by

On The Third Day…

When Saint Paul wrote (quoting an early creedal statement of the Church), that Jesus “was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4), what scriptures were in mind? For that matter, when Jesus himself predicted his suffering, death, burial, and Resurrection “on the third day” (cf. Mark 8:31; Matthew 16:21; Luke 9:22), did he believe he would be fulfilling any particular passage? Dr. Craig Evans seems to think so.

In his book (co-authored with N.T. Wright) “Jesus: The Final Days”, Evans notes that Hosea 6 (which just happens to be the Old Testament Mass reading today) may be in the background here, especially verse 2: “He will revive us after two days; on the third day he will raise us up, to live in his presence” (RSV). Evans notes that the translation of this verse in the Aramaic Targum (which Jesus, as a native speaker of Aramaic, would have probably been quite familiar with) has a unique emphasis: “He will revive us in the days of consolations that will come; on the day of the resurrection of the dead he will raise us up and we shall live before him” (Aramaic differences italicized). As Evans puts it, “The coherence of Jesus’ words with the Aramaic tradition is striking” (p. 13). It is hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus not only predicted not only his death, but also his Resurrection, seeing both as fulfilling scripture.

/1 Comment/by