Ok, we’ve finally arrived at what will likely be the most contentious issue (outside of the explanation) – the post-mortem appearances of Jesus after He was crucified. We will also examine the radical transformation in the lives of the disciples and others because that lends support to the resurrection hypothesis.Let’s begin with the creed in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8:
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: 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. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."
This creed is important because not just of its content, but its age. Habermas, in Strobel, claims that a case can be made for dating this creed to within two to eight years of the events themselves. Craig says five years. Note: this isn’t the book of Corinthians, but the creed itself. What’s significant about this creed is the falsifiability of its claims. Here we have Paul listing all the people who witnessed the resurrected Jesus included “five hundred of the brothers”, most of whom were still alive at the writing of the letter to the Corinthians. It seems like he is inviting the reader to check things out for themselves, and that’s not what someone who was propagating a lie would do. For example, Joseph Smith’s Twelve Golden Plates were seen only by members of his family and then taken back to heaven, so no one could verify what he claimed.
It also important that he lists James as a witness, because we know from the Gospels that Jesus’ family did not believe in Him during His life (Mark 3:21, 31-35; John 7:1-10), yet after the resurrection James shows up and becomes numbered among the Apostles, both the church historian, Eusebius and Jewish historian, Josephus, in his Antiquities records his death in the very temple - being thrown from the pinnacle and being stoned and clubbed to death under the three month “reign” of Ananus in 62AD for refusing to recant his faith in Christ. The charge is blaspheming the Law. What best explains his radical conversion? I think it best explained by his encountering the risen Lord. Think of it this way (to borrow an analogy from Craig) what would it take to convince you that your brother was the Messiah? Jesus’ death would have just confirmed in James’ mind that He was crazy, and wasn’t the Christ at all. For him to exhibit such a radical about-face and then die for his belief in his brother seems to me best explained by him meeting Jesus face-to-face after He rose.
Finally, Paul includes himself in this list of witnesses. He also goes on to remind us that when he encountered Christ he was incredibly hostile to the church, persecuting it (1 Cor 15:9), by, as Luke records, “breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples” (Acts 9:1). Now he’s one of Jesus’ most ardent supporters, spending time in and out of prison, being threatened and beaten, and ultimately killed for his belief. Only coming upon a resurrected (and hence justified by God) Jesus could bring about such a change in his life.It is also important to note that the appearances of Jesus are recorded by multiple people. For instance, the appearance to Peter is reported by both Luke and Paul, John joins those two in recording the appearance to the eleven remaining disciples, and the appearance to the women disciples is reported by Matthew and John, which is an account that enjoys the criterion of embarrassment, lending it some credibility – since women could not even give evidence in court, why would the disciples use them as a source of evidence unless they were reporting what actually happened? These provide multiple, independent attestations of what happened. They may all be in one book we call the Bible, but remember - that book didn’t exist until the fourth century!
And what of the original disciples? The gospels record them demoralised after the crucifixion, Peter even denying ever knowing Him. We see them downtrodden and dismayed on the road to Emmaus, we see Thomas refusing to believe unless he can touch the body, despite what his fellows told him they witnessed. We see them having given up their hope in Jesus and returned to their previous occupations. Then we see simple fishermen (for the most part) transformed into men of wisdom and influence, spreading the Good News across many lands and cultures, ultimately taking their belief in the risen Jesus with them to their deaths. You don’t die for something unless you believe it to be true!
I think this brings us to try and explain these claims. Let’s have a look at two possibilities – legendary development and hallucination.
Some have claimed that the appearances are merely a legend that grew up over time. The problem is, there just wasn’t enough time. Even if we accept a date for the gospels that is in the late first century, that is too soon for legend to creep in. We’d still have people alive who were with those who witnessed the events who could accurately report what was said, for example we have a disciple of John, Polycarp, who didn’t die until the mid 100s. Also, the narratives lack signs of legendary embellishment - they present plain facts with little in the way of exaggeration. Exaggeration and legend tend to spring up three to five generations later, when all of the original witnesses are dead - two to three, at earliest - but this still would require a form of “proto-Christianity” (i.e., a form that is “in the making” so to speak, while people still are forming ideas and solidifying legends.) And though we have several different ideas and theologies about Christianity, and even some embellishments, these all come from either spurious sources that even Jerome threw out or much later documents, a hundred or more years after the death of the disciples. As it is, there is no form of “proto-Christianity” that can be verifiable. It seems to start from a solid and undeniable belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnate God and had risen from the dead. There was simply no time for legend to start (by comparison, all accounts of miracles attributed to Muhammad come almost 500 years after the prophet died. None are contemporary with him). Finally, even if they were legendary, that doesn’t account for how the legend started. As Habermas says, the legend can’t tell you how the story started, just how it got bigger. And since the Jews had no concept of a bodily resurrection before the judgment of the whole world at the end of time, there seems no real place for such a story to have grown from. As Wright says, “there is no evidence for a form of early Christianity in which the resurrection is not a central belief.” Again – why would the disciples go to their deaths for something they invented?
The other main alternative offered is that of hallucination. Since it seems clear that they were sincere in their belief of a resurrected Jesus, perhaps they hallucinated Him? Psychologist Gary Collins has this to say:
"Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren’t something which can be seen by a group of people [like the 500]. Neither is it possible that one person could somehow induce an hallucination in somebody else. Since an hallucination exists only in the subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it."
Yet we have multiple people claiming to have seen that same thing at different times, and with different company. And let’s not forget Paul and James – hostile witnesses to the resurrection. We might claim that His disciples wanted to believe in Him so much that they caused themselves to hallucinate, but what would cause James and Paul to do the same? They had no such desire. Finally, how many of you can say that you know someone who has had an hallucination that was not brought on by either some form of substance or drug or some type of mental illness? Are we to believe that all of these witnesses were using hallucinogenic drugs, or were all mentally deranged? I think that stretches the explanatory power of this hypothesis too far.
I think that, given the alternatives, the hypothesis that Jesus really was raised from the dead, that He really appeared to those who claim to have seen Him is the explanation that best fits. It explains more of the facts in question than any rival hypothesis, and that is why I believe it to be the most reasonable explanation.
