Reading Time: 7 minutes

We’ve seen how badly the standard explanations of the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ faith stand when assessed by standard criteria for testing historical theory. They’re especially weak when it comes to explanatory scope and power and are often highly implausible. But does the resurrection theory stand a better chance at explaining the evidence? Is it a better explanation than the implausible naturalistic explanations offered in the past? Let’s apply our same criteria to the theory that “God raised Jesus from the dead.”

Explanatory scope

The resurrection theory has vastly greater explanatory scope than some rival explanations like the hallucination theory by explaining all five of the main facts at issue, whereas these rival theory explain only one or at most two poorly. 

Explanatory power

This is perhaps the greatest strength of the resurrection theory. The conspiracy theory, for example, just does not convincingly account for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances, and origin of the Christian faith; on these theories the evidence (for example, the transformation of the disciples) becomes very improbable. By contrast, on the theory of Jesus’ resurrection it seems extremely probable that the tomb should be empty, that the disciples should see appearances of Jesus alive, and that they should come to believe in His resurrection.

Illumination of history

If Jesus rose from the dead the origins of Christianity are explained; The disciples willingness to die for truly believing they saw the risen Jesus; Paul’s evangelism all across europe and the modern belief that Jesus physically rose from the dead all makes sense under this theory.

Less ad hoc

The resurrection theory possesses great explanatory scope and power, but some scholars have charged that it is ad hoc. Being ad hoc, you’ll recall, is a matter of how many new suppositions a theory must make that are not implied by existing knowledge. 

So defined, however, it’s hard to see why the resurrection theory is extraordinarily ad hoc. It requires only one new supposition: that God exists. Surely its rival theory require many new suppositions. For example, the conspiracy theory requires us to suppose that the moral character of the disciples was defective, which is certainly not implied by already existing knowledge; the apparent death theory requires the supposition that the centurion’s lance thrust into Jesus’ side was just a superficial poke or is an unhistorical detail in the narrative, which again goes beyond existing knowledge; the hallucination theory requires us to suppose some sort of emotional preparation of the disciples which predisposed them to project visions of Jesus alive, which is not implied by our knowledge. 

Such examples could be multiplied. 

Moreover, for the person who already believes in God, the resurrection theory doesn’t even introduce the new supposition of God’s existence, since that’s already implied by his existing knowledge. So the resurrection theory cannot be said to be ad hoc simply by virtue of the number of new suppositions it introduces. If our theory is ad hoc, then, it must be for some other reasons. Dr Campbell, philosopher, words it like this “

It is difficult to see why the resurrection theory is extraordinarily ad hoc. It requires only one new supposition: that God exists. Surely rival theory require many new suppositions.

Is the theory that “God raised Jesus from the dead” contrived in this sense? I don’t think so. A supernatural explanation of the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith can scarcely be said to be contrived given the context of Jesus’ own unparalleled life, ministry, and personal claims. A supernatural theory readily fits into such a context. It’s also precisely because of this historical context that the resurrection theory doesn’t seem contrived when compared to miraculous explanations of other sorts: for example, that a “psychological miracle” occurred, causing normal men and women to become conspirators and liars who would be willingly martyred for their lies; or that a “biological miracle” occurred, which prevented Jesus’ dying on the cross (despite the spear-thrust through his chest, and so forth). It is these miraculous theory that strike us as artificial and contrived, not the resurrection theory, which makes abundantly good sense in the context of Jesus’ ministry and radical personal claims. Thus, it seems to me that the resurrection theory cannot be characterized as excessively contrived. 

There is firmly little chance of any of the rival theory ever exceeding the resurrection theory in fulfilling the above conditions. The bewilderment of contemporary scholarship when faced with the facts of the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith suggests that no better rival is anywhere on the horizon. Once you give up the prejudice against miracles, it’s hard to deny that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the facts.

Plausibility

I can’t think of any accepted beliefs that disconfirm the resurrection theory—unless one thinks of, say, “Dead men do not rise” as disconfirmatory. But this generalization based on what naturally happens when people die does nothing to disconfirm the theory that God raised Jesus from the dead. We may consistently believe both that men do not rise naturally from the dead and that God raised Jesus from the dead. In contrast, rival theories are disconfirmed by accepted beliefs about, for example, the instability of conspiracies, the likelihood of death as a result of crucifixion, the psychological characteristics of hallucinatory experiences, and so forth, as we have seen.

We can see why Anthony Flew was bold enough to say:

The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity

Conclusion

Let us assess where we’ve come from, gone through and arrived at. We began by presenting evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, this was played out with five historical facts, 4 overwhelmingly agreed upon and one with a ¾ majority acceptance level. 

The first of these is that Jesus died by crucifixion and this is well established by scholars and makes the best sense of the data. This is a fact that is multibly attested by non-christian sources and is only really denied by Jesus mythers (who generally aren’t scholars) and Muslims who cannot have a crucified prophet. 

The second fact would be the disciples truly believed that they saw the risen Jesus. It is well established by non-Christian scholars like Gerd Ludemann, Paula Fredriksen and countless others that the disciples went to their death dying for something they knew to be true based on themselves being primary eyewitnesses, however that came about these critical scholars deny the facts. 

The third fact would be the church persecutor Paul coming to faith in Christ. Scholars really like Paul as we have chunks of manuscripts, we have his letters preserved and out of them 7 of 11 critical scholars accept as his own words. Paul’s testimony is expressed in many of these letters and scholars like him for it and the details within his letters suggest dating of the letters such as governors names. He is also seen as an honest source to critical scholars.

The forth fact was James, the sceptical brother of Jesus coming to believe his brother was the Messiah and God post-resurrection. It is well established he was head of the church in Jerusalem and non-christian sources speak of his death for belief Jesus was God. This is well attested by scholarly opinion also

The fifth fact would be the empty tomb. As this is slightly under 90% acceptance, we presented a broader case for the empty tomb and we argue the only reason why some reject it is because of the four facts currently yielded and what an empty tomb would lead to. Nonetheless we can see from the data provided that the empty tomb and burial of Jesus seems extremely likely considering the data we have. 

From the evidences we proceeded to deal with opposing theories with the majority falling short of philosophical standards, making too many assumptions and combining a series of ad hoc elements. The combination of just these five facts and their supporting evidences force any posteriori theory to yield itself to the resurrection theory. 

Apart from posteriori theories were priori philosophical theories which, apart from evidence, state the prospect of Jesus rising as either unscientific, impossible, too difficult for God, or just plain improbable. What we have established is there are many presuppositions underlying naturalism which assume certain factors which also are accepted on blind faith, especially in the fields of science. There are also factors such as near-death experiences, the possibility of miracles and even the shroud of Turin that have the potential to disqualify any priori theory from naturalism. 

So in a head to head comparison of the four popularist theories, we have the conspiracy theory which seems to fail in explanatory power, it is very ad hoc, does a poor job of explaining history and implausible. The apparent death theory, like the fraud theory really lacks any explanatory power, it doesn’t illuminate history with the first claim coming seven centuries later, it’s completely ad hoc and implausible. The hallucination theory cannot even account for the scope of evidence we have presented, it’s explanatory power can’t account for an empty tomb and does a poor job with Paul and James. The theory is very ad hoc, making countless assumptions and for that, is quite implausible. 

So we are able to come to the conclusion that God raised Jesus from the dead as it is the most plausible, not ad hoc, makes the most sense of history and has explanatory scope and power to explain all events regarding the relevant facts. The five facts imply that God raised Jesus from the dead and no opposing theory to the contrary even comes close to doing a better job. 
I’ll end with words of professor William Lane Craig who states that we can say “In an age of religious relativism and pluralism, the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus constitutes a solid rock on which Christians can take their stand… The rational man can now hardly be blamed if he believes that on that first Easter morning, a divine miracle has occurred”.

Sources for ‘Assessing the theories’

• Defending the Resurrection, p292, 
• Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig, p188-189, 
• Did the Resurrection Happen, Anthony Flew, p85
• Many thanks as a majority text to: Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision . David C. Cook. Kindle Edition. 
• [John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), 131. 
• [Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien—Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 49–50. 
• [Gary Habermas, “Experience of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection,” Dialog 45 (2006): 292. 
• [C. H. Dodd, More New Testament Studies (Manchester: University of Manchester, 1968), 128. 
• Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 80. 
• Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 80. 
• N. T. Wright, Sewanee Theological Review, 41.2, 1998. 
• Kristen Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 12–13.