Is Christianity true? (the Resurrection - Part 4)
This blog is part of my series titled “Is Christianity true?” The series addresses four common objections to the truthfulness of the Christian worldview, namely concerns about: (1) the trustworthiness of the Bible; (2) the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection; (3) the compatibility of faith in God with modern science; and (4) the incompatibility of Christian truth claims with those of other worldviews.
HISTORICAL FACTS CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION NARRATIVE - AN INTRODUCTION
In the investment management business, most analyses of the investment outlook include both top-down and bottom-up elements. A top-down approach considers broader economic and financial market trends to determine their implications in terms of asset mix in an investment portfolio. A bottom-up approach considers individual companies and their investment merit based upon their specific strategies and resources in the context of broader economic and financial market trends.
In the case of the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, this top-down/bottom-up analogy can be applied. By “top down,” I mean that believers accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God, along with its clear affirmation that Jesus was raised from the dead. They do not feel the need to carefully analyze the strength of the historical case for Christ. In any event, most people lack the training or the time to engage in such an analysis. For believers down through the centuries, the top-down approach has been sufficient for most people who, like me, have had a genuine encounter with Jesus and have surrendered to His leadership.
The bottom-up approach considers the question of the resurrection using accepted analytical techniques for studying history, such as the critical historical methodology. It is not assumed that the Bible is inspired by God. Rather, all the data, both biblical and extra-biblical, is looked at through a historical lens.
The goal is to tease out significant facts that are overwhelmingly agreed upon by properly trained scholars. Such scholars typically teach in a university setting, and their various publications are subjected to peer review. This scholarly approach is unbiased since input is welcomed from a wide ideological spectrum within the academy that ranges from atheism to agnosticism to liberal Christianity to conservative Christianity. From this point, we will take the bottom-up approach by examining some major facts that are overwhelmingly agreed upon within the academic community.
It should be noted that this strong consensus is a relatively recent development. Not that long ago, scholars would have vigorously argued over and disputed most of the facts to be discussed in this series. There were some who even questioned the historicity of Jesus’ existence, although virtually no serious scholar today would entertain such a notion.
For those of us who are Christians, these facts strongly support the Christian belief that Jesus was raised from the dead.
For those of us who are Christians, these facts strongly support the Christian belief that Jesus was raised from the dead. However, if we simply treat that belief as one hypothesis among several competing explanations, the task becomes to determine which of the competing hypotheses best supports the agreed-upon evidence.
The next few blogs will argue in favor of the physical resurrection of Jesus. For purposes of this exercise, I will draw upon the work of noted scholar Dr. William Lane Craig from whom I sought and received permission to reproduce in its entirety an article he wrote concerning the resurrection. It can be found in Appendix C to my book “More Than Your Business Card.”
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash
