Witnesses. Evidence for the Resurrection, Part 4

Christians have a strange blind spot on the question of witnesses in this area. For this page, I am going to look at this document, by Josh McDowell of Josh McDowell Ministry:

The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

The first gospel, the Gospel of Mark, was written thirty to forty years later. Was it immediately then circulated amongst the people of Jerusalem? We have no way of knowing. Suppose it was, and people came forward, saying it was false, would we have any way of knowing?

There is a saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It should be used judicially, and in particular you should think carefully about whether evidence would be expected. In this case we would not expect the gospel authors to record people coming forward to say it was false even if that did happen.

Remember that the Gospel of Mark originally claimed only there was an empty tomb, and the only people who knew about it never spoke of it. Let us suppose Mark made it all up. What would people who remembered the events object to exactly? Mark has built a narrative that is armoured against these denials - which makes me think it is made up, and certainly refutes the author's claim here.

Later gospels made bolder claims, but they might be sixty years after the event. Who was around to refute them? During his ministry, Jesus appeared to huge crowds, but post-resurrection his appearances were to very small groups. Were the apostles going to say that actually no, Jesus never appeared in Jerusalem? Of course not - for one thing, most had been martyred by then.

Over 500 Witnesses

Several very important factors are often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned.

Exactly what did those 500 people see? For reasons the author goes into, it seems reasonable to suppose this is no idle boast by Paul (he was writing at a time when his claim could be checked). We might quibble about the numbers, but I will let that pass.

But let us recall what Paul saw:

Acts 9:3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’
5 ‘Who are you, Lord?’ Saul asked.
‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 6 ‘Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.’
7 The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

This was no bodily resurrection. This was a bright light. Paul's version of the new glorified body of Jesus presumably. What was it the 500 saw? Jesus in his original body, completely with nail holes in his wrists, or a bright light? Paul would have understood either to be Jesus resurrected, so this claim of 500 witnesses is consistent with either of the scenarios being considered (see part 1).

Hostile Witnesses

Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.

Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.

Paul saw something that made him change his life. I accept that that happened. I do not accept that Paul saw the bodily resurrected Jesus, and if you read the account on Acts, it really does not sound like that is what Paul saw.

As a witness to the bodily resurrection, this fails. All we can say here is Paul saw something that he took to be Jesus in his new glorified body. This fits perfectly with the alternative scenario I am proposing.

The argument that Christ's appearances were only to followers is an argument for the most part from silence, and arguments from silence can be dangerous. It is equally possible that all to whom Jesus appeared became followers. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just "an insignificant few."

Previously the author was using the argument from silence to support his claim ("The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts."). Now he warns against such an argument.

Yes, an argument from silence can be wrong - that does not invalidate all arguments from silence. The question is, should we expect evidence? An absence of evidence when evidence is expected is indeed evidence of absence.

Let us differentiate here between the bodily appearances of Jesus and the rest. The appearance to the 500 cannot be claimed as a bodily appearance as already discussed, and for similar reasons I will not consider any of the appearances Paul cites. Instead, we will consider the gospels and Acts.

If we read the gospel accounts (and Acts) it is clear that no one in those accounts became a Christian after seeing Jesus alive again, despite the author's suggestion. He appeared exclusively to those already following him.

Mark: Mary Magdalene, the disciples
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, the Eleven disciples
Luke: disciples
John: Mary Magdalene, the disciples
Acts: disciples

The issue here is what we would expect from the scenarios proposed. Why did Jesus make no attempt to contact anyone but the two Marys and the disciples? Why were his appearances so often in obscure places or behind locked doors? I suggest that this was because these events were made up, and the authors wanted to restrict those present - possibly to those already dead when they were writing.

The simple fact is that the Bible records no hostile witnesses to the bodily resurrection of Jesus.