Resurrection Narratives are Historical documents

Resurrection Narratives

(Fabrication, Contradiction, Or Reliable Core?)

by Mark McFall
Taken from http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/resurrection_core.htm

Are the resurrection narratives in the Gospels fabrications? Well, there are certainly many skeptics that I have come across who insist that the narratives are fabrications. To them, the resurrection narratives are a type of manufactured collusion amongst the Gospel writers. But do we find signs of fabrication in the resurrection narratives themselves? Are there traces of collusion?

If the Gospel writers had fabricated the resurrection narratives, then it seems likely that they would *not* have left such obvious difficulties and discrepancies concerning the number of angels at the tomb, the order of Jesus’ appearances, and similar other details (See: Appendix: Divergences...). The fact that the resurrection accounts have been left *unreconciled* without any attempt to produce a single stereotyped connivance lends credibility to the fundamental honesty of those who transmitted the evidence. Indeed, divergences in the details of the resurrection narratives are such as one would expect from independent and excited witnesses. In my opinion, these discrepancies give off a non-fabricated appeal. [1]

Contradictions?

Other skeptics who are aware of the improbability of fabrication within the Gospels take those discrepancies and turn them around to argue that the resurrection narratives are hopeless contradictory and can’t be trusted. But does this approach prove any better? I don’t think so. That observations only calls into question the doctrine of inerrancy. However, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not dependent on an inerrant text. Nevertheless, many skeptics argue that the contradictions therein offer direct evidence against the resurrection. For those skeptics who take that line of approach, consider the words of the co-founder and former President of the Secular Web (Internet Infidels), Jeffery Lowder:

"From a theological perspective, the Bible does not have to be inerrant in order for the Resurrection to be true. And historically speaking, the fact that the NT accounts of the Resurrection contradict one another about incidental details provides no direct evidence against the Resurrection itself. Indeed, this is a problem that historians routinely face when assessing historical texts. But historians do not throw out entire groups of documents simply because the documents contradict one another about the incidental details. Instead, historians try to determine the best historical explanation for those disagreements, in an attempt to identify the core historical facts." (Jeffery Lowder, How Not to Argue Against the Historicity and Resurrection of Jesus,{http://www.infidels. org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/mckinsey.html})

Is this a call for quality skepticism? Indeed it is. The context of Lowder’s comments are in reference to Dennis McKinsey’s _Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy_. In that book, McKinsey influences his skeptical readers to take the "contradiction" approach with the average pewsitter. However, McKinsey has been called on this even within his own circles, and that fact should not go un-noticed. As Lowder points out:

"It appears that McKinsey, in his zeal to refute Biblical inerrancy, has forgotten that Christians don’t have to accept inerrancy in order to believe the Resurrection."

This sentiment is even expressed by popular fundamentalist like Norman Geisler:

"You can deny the inerrancy of the Bible and still be saved. If you deny the bodily resurrection, however, there's no basis for salvation (Rom. 10:9)." (CRI Newsletter, The Battle for the Resurrection: An Interview with Dr. Norman Geisler, by Ron Rhodes , Vol.5, #1, 1992.)

Whether the doctrine of inerrancy is able to survive or not under objective analysis is a red hearing and has no real bearing on the substance of the resurrection narratives.

Special Pleading

Those who argue that the resurrection narratives are not *reliable* because they are full of contradictions, inconsistencies, and discrepancies, will have a hard time determining anything from history if they apply those same flawed principles to ancient secular literary works. Reiterating Lowder’s point on this, "historians do not throw out entire groups of documents simply because the documents contradict one another about the incidental details." If historians don’t take this approach with other ancient literary sources, then why does the skeptical community as a whole insist that we do the opposite with the resurrection narratives? I smell a case of special pleading in the air here.

Take for instance the two contradictory accounts of the great Carthaginian General Hannibal and his crossing of the Alps with 26,000 troops (infantry/cavalry) in an effort to catch the Romans off-guard in a surprise invasion of Italy (i.e. Second Punic War BC 218-202). The Greek historian Polybius reports in his third book of _World History_ (ca.200-118 BCE) that Hannibal and his troops took a northerly route. While the Roman historian Livy in his twenty-first book of the _History of Rome from its Foundation_ (59 BCE-17 CE) insists that Hannibal’s route was southerly.

These two reliable ancient historians give us two conflicting eyewitness reports from the *same* witnesses concerning Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps by completely different routes. Scholars recognize that these literary discrepancies can not be harmonized, yet do scholars question Hannibal’s arrival in Italy? I think not. The discrepancy is there--but so is the quite undeniable fact. In a similar manner, while there are discrepancies and contradictions in the resurrection narratives, there remains an unshakable historical core that is even recognized by *some* of the most prolific skeptics of our time.

PART 1