Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ

by Dr. V.J.M. de Silva

Christianity rests on certain events that took place in history. This is something unique when compared to other religions. It stakes its claim to truthfulness on historical events open to critical investigation. This is especially true where the Resurrection is concerned. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a central event of history and the very corner-stone of the Christian faith. St. Paul has set this down very clearly in 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17 & 19 -"And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty."

In this article I propose to examine mainly the historical facts which support this unique event.

Jesus was killed by crucifixion

To start with, all four gospel writers (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) mention this fact. We can accept the gospels, treating them purely as a set of ancient documents that can be subjected to historical scrutiny. As Bishop John A.T.Robinson (1919-1983), author of Honest to God- 1963, observes, the New Testament must have been written prior to AD 70, which is the historically authenticated date for the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This event is not mentioned in the NT as something that happened, but as an event that will occur in the future - (in Re-dating the New Testament- 1976). Regarding the crucifixion and the resurrection accounts in the gospels, we find that the 'core beliefs' are the same; the differences are in the 'details'. This is usual when different people write about the same events.

There are a number of non-Christian sources that corroborate the crucifixion. To mention a few - Flavius Josephus (AD 37-100), Roman-Jewish historian, says in 'Jewish Antiquities', that Pilate 'condemned him to be crucified.' Historian Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56-117) says that Jesus 'suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius.' Lucian of Samosata (ca AD 125-180), a Greek satirist, mentions the crucifixion.

That Jesus was 'crucified', and 'died' as a result, there can be no doubt. The earliest accounts are emphatic about this. As Michael Licona, M.A., PhD, a New Testament historian says regarding the crucifixion, "The scholarly consensus - again, even amongst those who are sceptical toward the resurrection - is absolutely overwhelming. To deny it, would be to take a marginal position that would get you laughed out of the academic world."

Swoon theory

According to this, Jesus did not die on the cross, but was taken for dead, and later recovered. This theory ignores all the other recorded facts. Among all the insinuations against Christianity that have come down from antiquity, no mention of this is heard. There is no hint of it by the earliest opponents of Christianity. It was first propounded by the anti-Christian philosopher Celsus in the late 2nd century AD. Origen, in the 3rd century, wrote the treatise 'Contra Celsus' contradicting it.

Jesus' appearances to the disciples

The disciples testified that Jesus returned from the dead, and appeared to them in various places, and various times, for a period of about forty days. Ancient people relied on verbal transmission for passing along what happened, until it was written down. When there is a long interval between the occurrence of events and their recording, distortion could easily occur. This cannot be said of the Christian gospels.

Scholars have identified oral 'creeds', formulated and used by the early church in the NT. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, about AD 56 - (I Cor. 15: 3-7), mentions one. He says, "What I received I passed on to you ....... That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve......". This creed also spells out the post - Easter appearances of Jesus, including at one point to about 500 people. Scholars believe that Paul received this creed from Peter and James while visiting them in Jerusalem, three years after his conversion. That is extremely early!

We also have the writings of the Church Fathers who came after the passing away of the original disciples. Of these Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp lived in the latter part of the 1st century AD; Ireneaus, Justin Martyr in 2nd century; Tertullian and Origen in the 3rd century. Some of them had conversed with the apostles or were close to others who had. Their writings reflect the teachings of the disciples themselves. They all testify that the apostles were dramatically impacted by Jesus' resurrection.

One good evidence for the resurrection is the 'change' that came over the disciples following the resurrection appearances. Immediately following the crucifixion, the disciples were thoroughly demoralized and were in hiding like cowards. They changed six weeks later, after the resurrection appearances. Peter, who had denied that he knew Jesus, boldly proclaimed the Resurrection in the city of Jerusalem itself. Why did these people change? Why were they prepared to die for what they believed in? People, throughout the ages, like today's religious terrorists, have died for what they believe in. There is no proof for these beliefs. The disciples, however, were prepared to die for the 'truth' of the resurrection (having personally seen the Risen Christ). They knew for a 'fact' that the resurrection had truly occurred - and knowing the 'truth', they were willing to die for that belief. Men do not willingly die for what they 'know' is a lie. Contemporary martyrs die for what 'they' believe to be true. Of the disciples, only the Apostle John died a natural death. The rest were all martyred for their faith.

Evidence of the Sceptics

Saul of Tarsus (later Paul the Apostle), was committed to persecuting the early Christians. He witnessed the martyrdom by stoning, of Stephen the first Christian martyr (Acts 7: 58). He was converted after encountering the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus. It was not a hallucination, as his companions were witnesses to this - (Acts 9:7). You can't have simultaneous collective hallucinations - (it is individual). Saul was a most unlikely candidate for conversion and it demands explanation. He had nothing to gain by believing in Jesus but suffering and martyrdom.

Jesus' half-brother James, was also not a follower of Jesus during Jesus' life-time. He too was converted after a post-resurrection appearance. He later became leader of the Jerusalem church. James and Paul went on to willingly suffer and die for their 'eye-witness testimony'; not a mere belief. Even in modern times several sceptics have studied the resurrection with the idea of disproving it. Most of them ended up as believers, and later wrote books about it. Best known among them, (all lawyers), are Professor Simon Greenleaf, founder of Harvard Law School,(The Testimony of the Evangelists - 1846), Frank Morrison (Who Moved the Stone - 1930), Val Greve (The Verdict - 1988).

The Empty Tomb

The vast majority of scholars regard this as a historical fact - (Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, 'The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus', 2004). Christianity would never have got off the ground if Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb. All that the Roman and Jewish authorities had to do, was to go to the tomb and view the corpse and debunk the resurrection story. Instead, what they said was that the disciples stole the body. This is mentioned in Mathew's Gospel, and also by Justin Martyr and Tertullion. This is an admission by Jesus' opponents that the tomb was empty.

Not only was the tomb empty, the grave clothes were left undisturbed - (John 20: 6-8). It seemed as though the body of Jesus had vapourised and passed through the grave-clothes. It was like a chrysalis case after the butterfly has emerged; undisturbed but empty.Had Jesus resuscitated, he would have probably used the clothes when coming out.

Another fact, mentioned in all four Gospels, is that the first witnesses to the empty tomb are women. In the then Jewish and Roman cultures, women's evidence was regarded as questionable and not valid. Now, if you were going to concoct a story in order to fool others, you would only damage your credibility in those days, by citing women as first witnesses - unless of course, it is the naked truth! This is a good historical reason for believing the resurrection story.

Conclusion

What I have briefly discussed above are the main historical facts relating to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The metaphysical implications of these historical facts are no doubt controversial. Christians accept this as a miracle. Once God's existence is accepted as a possibility, miracles cannot be dismissed out of hand; they only become matters for investigation. Sir Peter Medawar, an agnostic, one time Nobel Prize winner, has said that the notion that science has proved the supernatural impossible, must be abandoned. "Belief in miracles does not destroy the integrity of scientific methodology, only its sovereignty. It says in effect that science does not have a sovereign claim to explain all events as natural, but only those that are regular, repeatable or predictable"- ('The Limits of Science' - 1984).It is when one considers all these facts mentioned above, taken together, that the truth becomes evident.

The best evidence for the resurrection is undoubtedly the existence of Christianity 2000 years later. Jesus was abused, persecuted and crucified by his own people. His ministry lasted only three years. Yet today He is venerated by one third of humanity. More books have been written about Him than anyone in human history. The greatest paradox is that the cross, on which He died, for hundreds of years the mode of execution of criminals in the Roman Empire, is today transformed after His death into a symbol of life and salvation.

As Rev.John Stott (1921-2011), well-known theologian, has said, "There is no adequate explanation for these events other than the Christian Easter affirmation - 'the Lord is risen, He is risen indeed' - (Basic Christianity, 1969)

(Most of the facts mentioned in this article are from Lee Strobel's 'The Case for the Real Jesus')