4.2 Is the resurrection the best explanation?

Published by 1c15 on

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Theories that attempt to refute the resurrection are known as naturalistic explanations because they appeal to the natural rather than supernatural. In the 19th century, liberal scholars rejected the resurrection and provided refutations, however prestigious scholar Karl Barth, a 20th century scholar pointed out how each opposing theory suffers from many inconsistencies and concluded “We rightly turn our noses up at this”. 

Raymond Brown, a scholar liberal critics respect said 20th century scholars reject all the opposing theories in play to the resurrection. He adds that contemporary thinkers both ignore these theories and even treat them as disrespectful to the field. But most are unaware of these facts so your friends may bring up these theories and each time the old theories are given a new spin they fall prey to the same demise as their predecessors.

Today, scholars say the disciples are seen to have experienced something. What it was they say is not known and the bias is against resurrection. Charles Hartshorne said after Gary Habermas’ debate with Anthony Flew; “I can neither explain away the evidences to which Habermas appeals, nor can I simply agree with Flew’s or Hume’s positions. My metaphysical bias is against resurrections”. When it comes to miracle reports, you must look for a natural explanation before researching the supernatural. Christians do this constantly with other religions and the Christian faith is not exempt from such investigation. Opposing theories should not make your faith feel threatened, if all the theories fall apart then they are worth nothing. 

A collection of unsuccessful theories do not make one super theory. Some of these opposing theories are also incompatible with each other, for example: apparent death theory and the 2nd fraud theory (someone else stole the body), they just don’t combine at all. Some will demand evidence with 100% certainty, they are looking for reasons for it not to be true, others reject it under any circumstances. If historians took this approach then we’d know almost nothing about history. Also just as Christians provide explanations for their claim Jesus rose from the dead, their opponents must provide the likewise for opposing theories. They must provide a better explanation of the facts than does Jesus’ actual bodily resurrection. The objective always is to arrive at the most plausible explanation for the data, although some theories may account of 1-2 of the facts, none account for all 5. It is also worth noting Gary Habermas provides 21 strong facts, but using 5 is a lot easier for the typical person to take in.

So

  1. Natural theories all fail somewhere down the line under being unable to account for one of the 5 facts
  2. The scholarly consensus is that something happened to the disciples and so it’s hard for them to really pick a theory
  3. No matter how weak an opposing theory may be and how strong the case is for the resurrection as it knocks down it’s opposition, some refuse to face the evidence, it feels against their nature to accept it

Sources on ‘Best explanation introduction’

  • for more on Liberal scholars, See Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1998), Karl Barth — Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, vol. 4, part 1, E.T., G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, eds. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956), 340.
  • Raymond Brown — Raymond Brown, “The Resurrection and Biblical Criticism,” Commonweal 24 (Nov. 1967): esp. 233. Brown repeated a similar indictment against these theories in Raymond Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (New York: Paulist, 1994), 163–65.
  • Old theories — See Gary R. Habermas, “The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection” in Trinity Journal 22NS (2001), 179–96.
  • Charles Hartshorne comments — Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? Terry L. Miethe, ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 142.

0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published.